STATE OF ILLINOIS 92ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR … · STATE OF ILLINOIS 92ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY...

STATE OF ILLINOIS 92ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT

44th Legislative Day May 18, 2001

PRESIDENT PHILIP:

The regular Session of the 92nd General Assembly will please

come to order. Will the Members please be at their desks? Will

our guests in the galleries please rise? Our prayer today will be

given by the Reverend Joe Eby, Chatham Presbyterian Church,

Chatham, Illinois. Reverend Eby.

THE REVEREND JOE EBY:

(Prayer by the Reverend Joe Eby)

PRESIDENT PHILIP:

Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Senator

Radogno.

SENATOR RADOGNO:

(Pledge of Allegiance, led by Senator Radogno)

PRESIDENT PHILIP:

The Illinois Information Service has made a request to film.

Is leave granted? Leave is granted. Senator Petka, for what...

Reading of the Journal.

SECRETARY HARRY:

Senate Journal of Wednesday, May 16th, 2001.

PRESIDENT PHILIP:

Senator Myers.

SENATOR MYERS:

Mr. President, I move that the Journal just read by the

Secretary be approved, unless some Senator has additions or

corrections to offer.

PRESIDENT PHILIP:

Senator Myers moves to approve the Journal just read. There

being no objection, so ordered. Senator Myers.

SENATOR MYERS:

Mr. President, I move that reading and approval of the Journal

of Thursday, May 17th, in the year 2001, be postponed, pending

arrival of the printed Journal.

1

SOLIMAR DFAULT TRANS NONE



PRESIDENT PHILIP:

Senator Myers moves to postpone the reading and the approval

of the Journal, pending the arrival of the printed transcript.

There being no objection, so ordered. Senator Petka, for what

purpose do you rise?

SENATOR PETKA:

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate resolve

itself into Executive Session for the purpose of acting on the

Governor appointment set forth in Message-May 2nd, 2001.

PRESIDENT PHILIP:

We'll now proceed to Executive Session for the purpose of

advise and consent. You've heard the motion. All those in favor,

signify by saying Aye. Those opposed, Nay. Motion carries. Mr.

-- we are -- we -- the motion carries, and we are in Executive

Session. Mr. -- Mr. Secretary, Committee Reports.

SECRETARY HARRY:

Senator Petka, Chair of the Committee on Executive

Appointments, to which was referred the Governor's Message of May

2nd, 2001, reported the same back with the recommendation the

Senate advise and consent to the following appointment.

PRESIDENT PHILIP:

Senator Petka.

SENATOR PETKA:

Mr. President, with respect to the Message of May 2nd, 2001,

I'll read the salaried appointment of which the Senate Committee

on Executive Appointments recommends the Senate do advise and

consent:

To be a member of the State Board of Elections for a term

ending June 30th, 2003, Jesse R. Smart of Bloomington.

Mr. President, having read the salaried appointment from the

Governor's Message of May 2nd, 2001, I now seek leave to consider

that appointment of May 2nd, 2001, on a roll call. Mr. President,

2




will you put the question as required by our rules?

PRESIDENT PHILIP:

Is there any discussion? Any discussion? If not, the

question is, does the Senate advise and consent to the nomination

just made. All those in favor will vote Aye. All those opposed,

Nay. The voting is open. Have you all voted who wish? Have you

all voted who wish? On the question, there are -- 58 Yeas, no

Nays, no voting Present. A two-thirds majority of Senators

elected concurring by a record vote, the Senate does advise and

consent to the nomination just made. Senator Dudycz, for what

purpose do you rise?

SENATOR DUDYCZ:

Thank you, Mr. President. I would -- stand on a point of

personal privilege.

PRESIDENT PHILIP:

State your point.

SENATOR DUDYCZ:

We have with us this morning, in the gallery behind me on the

Republican side, the fourth-grade class of Rutledge Elementary

School, from Lincolnwood, being represented by both Senator

Silverstein and myself. And they are led by their teachers, the

first one being Jean Catalano, and five additional teachers.

PRESIDENT PHILIP:

Will they please rise and be recognized by the Senate?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR DUDYCZ)

Committee Reports.

SECRETARY HARRY:

Senator O'Malley, Chair of the Committee on Financial

Institutions, reports Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 3068 Be

Approved for Consideration.

And Senator Klemm, Chair of the Committee on Executive,

reports that Senate Amendment 2 to House Bill 2439, Amendment 1 to

3




House Bill 2641, and Amendment 2 to House Bill 3188, all Be

Adopted.


Messages from the House.

SECRETARY HARRY:

A Message from the House by Mr. Rossi, Clerk.

Mr. President - I am directed to inform the Senate that

the House of Representatives has passed a bill of the following

title, in the passage of which I am instructed to ask the

concurrence of the Senate, to wit:

House Bill 859.

Passed the House, May 17th, 2001.


Senator Lauzen, what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR LAUZEN:

For a point of personal privilege.


State your point, sir.

SENATOR LAUZEN:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Before we get into

today's business, legislative business, I would like to introduce

to the Illinois State Senate a -- a number of guests of honor that

we have here with us today. I would ask the -- the special guests

in the gallery to rise while I give a bit of an introduction of --

of what this group has done. As a member of the Navy League, I am

especially delighted to introduce some guests in the President's

Gallery today. This group of men, who are accompanied by their

wives today, served honorably during the Second World War. More

recently, they undertook a task that has never been done before

and will probably never be done again: They recovered an LST, or

a landing ship tank, more affectionately known by those who

operated 'em as a large, slow target during the Second World War,

4




which was a support ship that delivered seventeen Sherman tanks at

a time or four of the type of landing crafts that you see in the

movies. They would -- these ships would contain four of those at

a time, into the war effort. I ask you to imagine finding a '42

Chevy in a junkyard, driving it sixty-two hundred miles, which is

two times across the -- the -- America, sixty-two hundred miles

across a desert, with a driver who's over seventy-two years old.

Well, and that's what these fellows did. Usually there's a

complement of a hundred sailors who take this ship across the sea.

They had twenty-eight. What they did is they found an old LST on

the Mediterranean Island of Crete. They salvaged it. They --

they -- you don't sail an LST. What do you -- they -- they

brought it over from Crete through the Mediterranean, then across

the Atlantic Ocean, in the middle of winter, to bring it home to

Mobile, Alabama, after people said that it couldn't be done, so

that it could become a living museum so that people can understand

the great nature of American citizens and those who serve in the

Armed Forces. It took 'em twenty-eight days to come across the

ocean. They got there an hour ahead of time, which is very

typical of these guys, getting there on time, and it demonstrates

the perseverance of the greatest generation in our history. With

that, I'd like to introduce the individual members who are with us

today. First of all, the Captain and Commander of the operation,

Bob Jornlin and his wife, Lois; Don -- oh, and we'll hold the

applause for all five -- Don and Mary Chapman, who are from East

Moline; Bob and Lois Jornlin are from Earlville, Illinois; Donald

and Virgene Lockas are from Marseilles; and Bruce and Katie Voges

are from Oakwood, which is just outside of Danville in Judy Myers'

area; and then Ed and Eileen Strobel, from Decatur. These LSTs

were manufactured in Seneca, Illinois, and part of the great,

massive effort, the war effort, that won the Second World War.

With that, I would welcome our guests of honor...

5





Will our guests in the gallery please rise and be recognized?

Welcome to Springfield. Senator Jacobs, what -- what purpose do

you rise?

SENATOR JACOBS:

Just in -- a comment in regards to Senator Lauzen's comments.

It's great that these people are here, but also they're looking

for a -- a place to put this LST, and I think it would be great

that -- if we would work on some sort of a -- a bill next year in

order to bring that LST to -- to the State of Illinois.


Turn your attention to the bottom of page 13, in the Order of

Senate Bills 3rd Reading. We will -- we will be going to that

order of business immediately. House Bills 3rd Reading. Thank

you, Senator Molaro. Bottom of page 13, in the Order of House

Bills 3rd Reading, is House Bill 2. Senator Mahar. Mr.

Secretary, read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 2.

(Secretary reads title of bill)

3rd Reading of the bill.


Senator Mahar.

SENATOR MAHAR:

Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. House Bill 2

is the alternative fuels vehicle, the purpose of which is to go to

conference committee, pending the budget negotiations. I know of

no opposition to this procedure.


Is there any discussion? If not, the question is, shall House

Bill 2 pass. All those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed will vote

Nay. The voting is open. Have all voted who wished? Have all

6




voted who wished? Have all voted who wished? Take the record.

On that question, there are 56 Ayes, no Nays, none voting Present.

And House Bill 2, having received the required constitutional

majority, is hereby declared passed. Bottom of page 13, in the

Order of Senate -- House Bills 3rd Reading, is House Bill 39.

Senator Parker. Mr. Secretary, read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 39.




Senator Parker.

SENATOR PARKER:

Thank you, Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate.

We have made this a vehicle bill because there are ongoing

negotiations. What we are trying to do is come up with agreement,

and we are almost there, working with the Secretary of State's

Office, on abandoned vehicles. So I would ask for your favorable

vote so we can move this forward.



Bill 39 pass. All those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed will

vote Nay. The voting is open. Have all voted who wished? Have

all voted who wished? Have all voted who wished? Take the

record. On that question, there are 56 Ayes, no Nays, none voting

Present. And House Bill 39, having received the required

constitutional majority, is hereby declared passed. Top of page

14, in the Order of House Bills 3rd Reading, is House Bill 60.

Senator Watson. House Bill 148. Senator Myers. Mr. Secretary,

read the bill.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 148.

7







Senator Myers.

SENATOR MYERS:

Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Assembly. This

amends the Police -- Illinois Police Training Act. It requires

that an applicant for employment as a peace officer shall

authorize a criminal background check and -- no law enforcement

agency may knowingly employ a person unless such criminal

background check is completed and reveals no convictions. This was

at the request of the Illinois Sheriffs' Association. In addition,

Senator Klemm has placed on this bill an amendment which adds a

new provision to the Municipal Code to authorize any municipality

with a board of fire and police commissioners to ignore the

thirty-five-year age limit for new police hires if that person has

served as a sheriff's deputy and otherwise meets necessary

training requirements. I'd be glad to answer questions, but would

like a favorable vote.



Bill 148 pass. All those in favor will vote Aye. And the vote --

opposed will vote Nay. And the voting is open? Have all voted who

wished? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take

the record. On that question, there are 56 Ayes, no Nays, none

voting Present. And House Bill 148, having received the required

constitutional majority, is hereby declared passed. House Bill

169. Senator Burzynski. House Bill 215. Senator Dillard. Mr.

Secretary, read the bill, please. Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

Thank you, Mr. President. I would ask leave to come back to

this bill. There is a technical amendment that has been filed

8




this morning. We are going to have a Rules Committee meeting, I

believe, in a little while, and the Rules Committee meeting needs

to pop out this technical amendment to the Floor so we can

consider it. And, Mr. President, I'd ask leave to come back to

this...


Hearing no objection, leave is granted. House Bill 263.

Senator Dillard. House Bill 273. Senator DeLeo. Read the bill,

Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 273.




Senator DeLeo.

SENATOR DeLEO:

Thank you, Mr. President and Members -- Ladies and Gentlemen

of the Senate. House Bill 273 - yesterday we adopted the Floor

amendment, which -- which actually became the bill. And what this

does, it creates the Automatic Sprinkler Contractor Act {sic}

(Fire Sprinkler Contractor Licensing Act). This will be for

improper installation and repair of fire and sprinkler systems.

We came to an agreement late yesterday. As I mentioned, I was

going to hold this on 3rd Reading. All parties -- the Home

Builders, the -- the Plumbing Union and all parties came to an

agreement. We'd ask to pass this the way it is. We're going to

send it over to the House and do the technical amendment over in

the House and -- and concur in a conference committee. So I think

that explains the bill.




9




vote Nay. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all

voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On

that question, there are 56 Ayes, no Nays, none voting Present.


majority, is hereby declared passed. House Bill 356. Senator

Sullivan. House Bill 469. Senator Thomas Walsh. Read the bill,

Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 469.




Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. President and Members of the Senate. House

Bill 469 - yesterday we had an amendment to take off the

stormwater management portion of the bill, which was a somewhat

controversial part of the bill. What this does is it makes three

districts for the Water Reclamation District within Cook County.

The districts would be the same as the Board of Review districts.

This would guarantee representation for all of the county, which

is not the case right now. And the second thing that it does is

it eliminates the Sanitary District Observer position. This is a

position which is no longer necessary. It's been editorialized by

both major newspapers that this position should be eliminated, and

that would be accomplished within this bill. I'd be happy to

answer any questions.


WCIA-TV has requested permission to record the proceedings.

Hearing no objection, leave is granted. Any discussion? Senator

Welch, Patrick Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

10




Thank you, Mr. President. I'd just like to stand in

opposition to this bill. I don't think we need to have separate

districts for the members of this commission. They've done a fine

job as it is. It doesn't make any sense to split -- split these

up and have smaller districts. I think that they need to have the

overall picture of the entire area that they're serving. So for

that reason, I would urge that everybody here vote against this

bill. Thank you.


Further discussion? Senator Viverito.

SENATOR VIVERITO:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Will the Senator yield for a few

questions?


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Viverito.

SENATOR VIVERITO:

Senator, I think that -- you and I both served at the Sanitary

District, and I feel that both of us did our best. And I'm

certain that you realize, totally, that the Sanitary District of

Greater Chicago probably -- Water Reclamation District has one of

the finest reputations in the State of Illinois as probably being

one of the more efficient agencies, wouldn't you say?


Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

There is no question about the fact that the people that work

at the District do a very good job. What we are talking about is

those that are elected to the Sanitary District, and what I am

asking for - and to answer the previous question or the previous

comment - you know, all we're asking for is the fact that each one

of the Water -- or, each one of the treatment plants for the Water

Reclamation District is located in the suburbs and yet the suburbs

11




don't have representation or the kind of representation that they

should have on this board. And there is no guarantee, with the

way that it's set up, as was the -- the County Board previously

and the Board of Review. The County Board, for many years, the --

the -- the commissioners ran at large. I think it was back in

1992, we created single-member districts for them. In 1994, we

created single-member districts for the -- for the Cook County

Board of Review. I'm asking that we do the same thing for the

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District to guarantee that the

people that are paying the taxes, to guarantee that the people

that are subjected to the treatment plants in their areas have

some say as to what happens on the board.


Senator Viverito.

SENATOR VIVERITO:

Senator, I'm glad that you agree how well it runs, but

obviously in your particular area, in the western suburban area,

recently, as much as - what? - two or three years ago, I believe

is was the Vulcan Quarry that was going to house something like

thirteen billion gallons of stormwater, as well as the combined

sewer system, which many of the residents in that area totally

objected to, including Senator Radogno, I believe State Treasurer

Judy Baar Topinka, Congressman Bill Lipinski, myself included.

Obviously many of us were concerned, from an environmental

standpoint. Of course, the District did their best to explain it.

Eight of the commissioners voted against that proposal.

Obviously, if it would have been into this district and say the

whole three were elected from that -- western suburbs, the other

commissioners might have very well says, "The heck with it, we're

going to solve a lot of the problems in the older suburban areas,"

like Brookfield and Cicero and all of those areas along the

Des Plaines. They could have pushed it all out into that

12




particular community. But, no, the wisdom of the District -- and

people are elected at that District from all different ways. And,

obviously, you know and I know that the Democratic Party - and I'm

a Cook County Central Committeeman - no longer can dictate as to

who is going to be elected there. It has become an extremely

competitive field with as high as twenty-eight to twenty-nine

members running for it from all walks of life - lawyers, teachers.

And, believe me, I lost that election in 1986, Tom, as you lost

it. I know that was a nice place to work, at 100 East Erie, right

off of Michigan Avenue, but, Tom, in your wisdom, you should pull

this bill off, knowing full well that the District has done a good

job. The deep tunnel is working. Please don't change it.


Further -- further discussion? Senator Hendon.

SENATOR HENDON:

Thank -- thank you -- am I on? Thank you, Mr. President. I

-- I believe Senator Walsh was about to respond to Senator

Viverito. I'd like to hear that response before I -- give him the

opportunity to respond. I think he -- he wanted to.


Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

Yeah. I don't want to prolong things, and -- and -- and,

Senator Viverito, there's no question about the fact that the

District runs well, and there are -- there -- that is because of

the people that are working there. It isn't necessarily because

of the elected commissioners. And all I am saying is that what we

ought to guarantee -- and there are -- there's twenty-seven people

running in the Democratic primary usually for that position,

because you know and I know that if you can get that top ballot

position, it's not a bad one to have. All I'm saying is that we

ought to have -- we ought to make sure that -- that every part of

13




the county is represented at the Water Reclamation District, and

-- and that is not being done right now. What this bill would do

is it would guarantee that everybody in Cook County would be

represented by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, of

which each one of us is paying taxes to in Cook County, and I

don't feel like I'm being represented.


Senator Viverito.

SENATOR VIVERITO:

Now, I don't want to belabor this particular situation, but

it's extremely important that many of you on that side of the

aisle - and of course, many in here -- people that live here in

Cook County realize that the Water Reclamation District has more

professional staff, civil service complete. There is nobody there

that isn't capable and able, and if the governing board was doing

anything wrong, you wouldn't have all civil service employees and

you wouldn't have all those professionals. You do deserve some

credit when you're a commissioner because you're the ones that

labor, you're the ones that set policy and the -- general

superintendent carries out those policies.


Senator Viverito.

SENATOR VIVERITO:

I would hope that in the wisdom of this Body, when something

is running as well as it's running, because, believe me, all of

the major newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune, which is _______________

basically a little more Republican, always said keep the District

running the way it is. And it's running well. And the

commissioners are doing an excellent job. Tom, I urge you to pull

this bill off...


Senator Walsh.

14




SENATOR VIVERITO:

...and reconsider it.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

I -- I -- you know, I'm not going to do that, because I think

it's a -- I think it's a good bill, and you know -- you know, if

the credit with the Water Reclamation District -- and you know

the way that it's set up is that it is the job of the

commissioners to appoint a general superintendent, and it is the

general superintendent's job to run the day-to-day operation of

the Water Reclamation District. It is not the commissioner's job

to run the -- the -- the day-to-day operation. The commissioner's

position is a part-time position. It is their job to appoint a

general superintendent, and it's -- it is that person's job to run

the day-to-day operation. And although it -- the -- the

commissioners can get some credit for who the -- the -- the

general superintendent is, the day-to-day operation isn't -- isn't

up to them.


Senator Viverito.

SENATOR VIVERITO:

Senator, in all due respect, the Sanitary District, many years

ago, had many problems. Many of its elected officials were

irresponsible. That is not the case today. I know, Tom, that

you'd like to be closer to home, obviously. You've got a couple

of small children. I understand that. But, you know, we need you

here in the State Senate too. So, I understand the feeling.

You're doing a good job in the State Senate, and we want to keep

you here. I urge a No vote. Thank you very much.


Further -- further discussion? Senator Hendon.

SENATOR HENDON:

Thank -- thank you -- thank you, Mr. President. I won't -- I

15




think I'll change my tactic after what my esteemed Leader here,

Senator Viverito, said. I don't believe that you're doing this

for yourself, but I -- I do want to ask, because I have seen

people draw maps and lines before and then run for that office.

That's -- can you unequivocally say today that you will not be

running for this position?


Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

Unequivocally.


Further discussion? Senator Hendon.

SENATOR HENDON:

Was that an unequivocal yes or an unequivocal no?


Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

It was unequivocally.


Further discussion? Senator Demuzio.

SENATOR DEMUZIO:

The sponsor yield for a question?


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Demuzio.

SENATOR DEMUZIO:

I just had a question related to the bill, Senator Walsh. On

page 15, it says that -- obviously this is a Section that deals

with cumulative voting, but it also says "No political party shall

limit its nominations to less than two candidates for commissioner

in any subdistrict", and -- since you have cumulative voting. So

I -- I assume that there is no guarantee that there would be any

minority representation in the districts to which you are drawing.

16




It could be three Democrats or it could be three Republicans. Was

that the way -- I'm -- I interpret this?


Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

This is identical language to the way that the -- that the

House used to operate with cumulative voting.


Senator Demuzio.

SENATOR DEMUZIO:

All due respect, I don't think it says that. It says here

that no political party shall limit its nominations to two. So you

could have as many as you want. And then under cumulative voting,

it says you take the -- the top -- the top three. So there's no

guarantee that you would have a minority representation person

represented in that district. You would have to say, you take the

-- the highest two are elected and -- and the person of the -- of

the other political party that -- that is on the ballot, whoever

gets the highest number of those votes, is elected. But that isn't

what it says.


Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

You're right that the top three would win. It's -- it's

identical to the language that was used in -- used in the old

House. And that language didn't guarantee that there was going to

be minority representation either.


Senator Demuzio.

SENATOR DEMUZIO:

Oh, yes, it did. That's how you got minority representation.

This is -- what I'm -- what I'm -- I mean, it doesn't make any

17




difference. I mean, I just want to point out to you that "no

political party shall limit its nominations to less than two

candidates...." So I could have four candidates. You could -- the

other political party could have three candidates. And you still

take -- you take the top three vote getters. So you don't get any

minority representation. Okay. Thank you.


Further discussion? Senator Emil Jones.

SENATOR E. JONES:

Yeah. Thank you, Madam {sic} President. Will the sponsor

yield?


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Jones.

SENATOR E. JONES:

Senator Walsh, now the Water Reclamation District, it takes

care of almost all of -- all of Cook County?


Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

Yes. And -- and there are some portions outside of Cook

County that it takes care of also.


Senator Jones.

SENATOR E. JONES:

But it takes care of the entire Cook County, right?


Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

Yes.


Senator Jones.

SENATOR E. JONES:

18




Well, for the Body -- and it shows you when one is talking

about something when they really know the issue themselves and

they're trying to make changes. See, for your edification,

Senator, the Water Reclamation District does not cover all parts

of Cook County. There are portions within Cook County that is not

part of the Water Reclamation District. Are you aware of that?


Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

Yes, but, however, they do vote for the Water Reclamation

District, and Bloom Township, I think, is the portion that you're

talking about. They do vote for the members of the Water

Reclamation District. And the LaGrange Highlands, which they have

their own sanitary district, they still do vote for and pay taxes

to the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. But they are not

served with their -- with the -- their sewage does not go to the

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District.


Senator Jones.

SENATOR E. JONES:

Well, it is not only Bloom Township. There are other parts of

the southern suburbs and I'm quite sure some parts -- there are

other parts of the county that's not part of the Water Reclamation

District. I want the Body to know that. I think, you know, when

you're presenting a bill for the entire Cook County, this is not

the case, and I urge a No vote on this bill.


Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

You know, there -- but those people still do pay taxes to the

Water Reclamation District, and they -- and they still vote for

the commissioners of the Water Reclamation District. I mean, the

19




fact of the matter is, is when we're down here, what we're doing

is we're representing the whole State, but we're not running

statewide. The issues that come before us are issues that affect

every part of the State, but we are each elected from districts.

And I'm only asking for the same thing that we're doing down here

to happen up in Cook County in the Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District. It is one of the few governmental bodies in the State

of the many that we have that is still elected at large. We have

divided up the County Board. We have divided up the Board of

Review. And I don't know why we didn't divide up, at the same time

that we did that, the Water Reclamation District, but we didn't.

And now it's time to do it.


Further discussion? Senator Molaro.

SENATOR MOLARO:


I'm just rising because I have the next bill on the Water

Reclamation District and I don't want anybody to get too upset

during this particular speech. Anyway, the point of the matter is,

I think that we certainly have to start looking long and hard at

-- at going to single-member districts. Everything Senator Walsh

has said seems to make sense to me. I don't necessarily, however,

Senator Walsh, agree that it should be done cumulative voting for

the three. I know we've tried other ones, just making it maybe

similar to the subcircuits, maybe making it only six commissioners

or -- or expanding it to twelve. I think, and I will commit to

you, that I think we certainly have to look at this as much as we

can, but, unfortunately, in the -- in the manner that it is, I --

I feel they should be single-member districts. I just don't know

if this is the route to take with the three commissioners, three

in each district. I don't know. I'd rather see -- you're right,

this is just as much of becoming one as -- as a Cook County Board

20




member, even though Senator Cullerton explained something else.

But, you're right. If we did everything else, the time is

eventually going to come for this to go to single members. But

maybe not this way. So, thank you.


Further discussion? If not, Senator Walsh, to close.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

Well, I -- you know, it's been debated pretty well. I think

it's a commonsense bill. I'm only asking for the same thing that

these other agencies in Cook County have. I'm asking that every

one in Cook County have representation on this board. And I think

that one thing that we haven't talked about that's important is

that this bill eliminates the Sanitary District Observer. Now,

this is a position that's paying twenty-eight thousand dollars to

go and sit and watch each one of these -- each one of these board

meetings. It's a position that is elected by the Governor. It's

a position that the Governor wants to eliminate because it is an

unnecessary position. It is a position that both major newspapers

have editorialized about getting rid of. It is time to get rid of

the Sanitary District Observer. It's time to -- to give all of

Cook County representation on the Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District Board, and I'd ask for a favorable vote.


The question is, shall House Bill 469 pass. All those in

favor will vote Aye. Opposed will vote Nay. The voting is open.

Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted

who wish? Take the record. On that question, there are 27 Ayes,

30 Nays, none voting Present. And House Bill 469, having not

received the required constitutional majority, is hereby declared

failed. Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

I'd like Postponed Consideration on that bill.

21





Postponed Consideration. Hearing no objection, leave is

granted. House Bill 478. Senator Molaro. Mr. Secretary, read the

bill.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 478.




Senator Molaro.

SENATOR MOLARO:


This affects not how they're elected or anything to do with the

elected board or the attorney or anybody else. These are the five

or six thousand members that are in the pension fund at the Water

Rec. Maybe about eight or ten years ago, everybody got involved

and turned to the 21st century and then went to Prudent Man Rule

with their investments. However, the Water Reclamation District

was a little slow in doing that, and what they ask in this bill is

that they need the permissive language to invest up to sixty-five

percent of the funds in certain stocks - you know, graded AAA

stocks - that everybody else -- the other sixteen pension funds

have this authority. The Water Reclamation District does not have

this authority. And the point is, whenever we had that two-year

runaway market - everybody was returning some enormous returns -

the Water Reclamation District wasn't able to do that. This gives

them the language to do that. Also, there are fifty - 5-0 - just

fifty elderly individuals, somewhere in their eighties or -- or

late seventies, that are -- have a pension and they're living on

five hundred dollars a month. For those individuals, it would

take their minimum salary -- minimum annuity from five hundred to,

in some cases, six-twenty-five, so they're not over there living

22




on pet food. So, that's all it does. There's -- it's a really

no-cost item, and we'd ask for your support.


Is there any discussion? Senator Thomas Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

I just -- you know, in spite of the last bill, I do want to

rise in -- in support of this bill and let everyone know that

these are good people. This is a -- a good bill, and I would urge

our side of the aisle to support the bill.


Any further discussion? If not, Senator Molaro, to close?

SENATOR MOLARO:

We ask for a favorable roll call, and I thank the gentleman

from Cook. Thank you.






no Nays, none voting Present. And House Bill 478, having received

the required constitutional majority, is hereby declared passed.

Senator Petka, what purpose do you rise? House Bill 505. Senator

Rauschenberger. House Bill 512. Senator Roskam. Mr. Secretary,

read the bill.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 512.




Senator Roskam.

SENATOR ROSKAM:


23




House Bill 512 provides that the ownership of an interest in the

surface of lands by a co-owner of an interest in minerals

underlying the surface does not prevent partition of the mineral

estate. It's an initiative of the State Bar Association. At the

recommendation of Chairman Hawkinson, we amended it so that

nothing in this Act can be construed as allowing an owner of a

mineral or interest in coal or -- in coal to mine and remove the

coal by the surface method of mining without first obtaining the

consent of all of the owners of the surface. I don't know of any

opponents. It's just cleaning up some case law.






that question, there are 56 Ayes, no Nays, no -- none voting



549. Senator Cullerton. Mr. Secretary, read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 549.




Senator Cullerton.

SENATOR CULLERTON:

Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. This bill is

a -- comes as the result of a report of the Task Force on

Professional Practice in the Illinois Justice Systems, chaired by

J. William Roberts, and issued this report on May of the year

2000. And it's supported by the Illinois Association of County

Boards and Commissions, Metro Counties Council, Public Defenders'

24




Association, Illinois State Bar Association, and the State's

Attorneys' Association and AFSCME. What it does is to say that

the State shall treat public defenders as it does State's

attorneys, in that for part-time public defenders in Illinois, of

which we have eighty-five, that -- approximately eighty-five, that

the State would pay two-thirds of their salary, just as they do

for the State's attorneys. If -- in the case of the full-time

prosecutor -- full-time public defenders, if their salary is

ninety percent of the State's attorney's salary, then the State

would also pay two-thirds. That decision, though, is made up to

the county boards. The county boards are the ones that determine

what the salaries are of their public defenders. Right now, the

eighty-five counties that have part-time public defenders, it's

estimated that their salaries are approximately twenty thousand

dollars per year. It ranges between ten to thirty thousand

dollars a year. But the concept is for the State to help the

counties by picking up this support. Most of the benefit would be

for the smaller counties, and it would -- it was -- it was the

recommendation of the Task Force on Professional Practice in order

for us to upgrade the quality of the public defenders throughout

the State of Illinois. I'll be happy to answer any questions and

ask for an Aye vote.


Is there any discussion? Senator Burzynski.

SENATOR BURZYNSKI:

Thank you, Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield?


Sponsor indicates he will. Senator Burzynski.

SENATOR BURZYNSKI:

Thank you. Senator Cullerton, I see -- you talked about the

public defenders. Is there language in here relative to the

State's attorney's office and the assistant State's attorneys as

25




well?


Senator Cullerton.

SENATOR CULLERTON:

No, this is meant to bring them similar to the current law

with regard to state's attorneys?


Any further discussion? Senator Lauzen.

SENATOR LAUZEN:

Thank you, Mr. President. A question for the sponsor.


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Lauzen.

SENATOR LAUZEN:

Do I have the correct understanding from our -- our analysis?

When it explains the amendment, it says that the -- increases the

-- the State stipend to assistant State's attorneys in counties

with State mental health institution for counties under ten

thousand people by five hundred percent. Actually, this one's --

in that county, it's about six hundred percent. In thirty thousand

to a million people, it would go up about five hundred percent,

the State stipend. Do I have that understanding correct?


Senator Cullerton.

SENATOR CULLERTON:

Senator, I believe you're reading from an analysis of an

amendment which is unfortunately still in the Rules Committee. For

some reason, it didn't get out of the Rules Committee, as hard as

we tried. So I -- that's a different bill.


Senator Lauzen.

SENATOR LAUZEN:

Okay. So that's -- those amendments were, out of fiscal

26




prudence, then held someplace in a committee in the process.

Thank you very much.


Any further discussion? Senator Rauschenberger.

SENATOR RAUSCHENBERGER:

Question or two of the sponsor, if he'll yield.


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Rauschenberger.


Senator Cullerton, is it currently a responsibility of the

State of Illinois to pay for public defenders?


Senator Cullerton.

SENATOR CULLERTON:

No, just State's attorneys.


Senator Rauschenberger.


Would -- would you assert that if we don't pass this bill,

that these people will not get paid?


Senator Cullerton.

SENATOR CULLERTON:

No, they would continue to be paid by the -- by the counties,

as they are now.




Senator Cullerton, I always appreciate your thoughtful

sponsorship and know that -- that you mean well with this, and

perhaps, as we move forward, equity between our treatment of

public defenders and State's attorneys might well be a good idea.

27




I just would caution Members that this year, based on our

resource, assuming another State responsibility at a time when

we're having a hard time meeting other State responsibilities,

might not be prudent. And I would urge people to think very

carefully about whether we ought to assume another responsibility.

Maybe the sponsor might think about holding this bill for Veto

Session, after we have a better idea of the dimension of the

budgets.


Further discussion? Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA:


I stand, briefly, just to strongly support this bill. You know,

we pass an awful lot of laws in here dealing with imposing

criminal penalties on a wide range of -- of persons across the

State. We subsidize the prosecutors. I think that part of our

central role in providing justice to persons is to make sure that

they're getting an adequate defense as well. This is an

extraordinarily modest cost, Senator Rauschenberger, and I would

strongly suggest that if we don't do this now, we're essentially

just putting it off. I -- I would urge adoption of this bill.


Any further discussion? If not, Senator Cullerton, to close.

SENATOR CULLERTON:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. This --

this undoubtedly will -- will benefit counties, smaller counties,

the counties that have -- the eighty-five counties that employ

part-time public defenders. It will assist those counties by

having the State pick up two-thirds of the cost of the public

defender's salary, just as they do right now for the State's

attorneys. I think it's a basic concept of fairness, and it came

as a result of the Task Force on Professional Practice, which

28




issued their report last year. As I said, it's a very modest

cost, a little over a million dollars, and I would ask for an Aye

vote.


The question -- the question is, shall House Bill 549 pass.

All those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed will vote Nay. The

voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who

wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On that

question, there are 45 Ayes, 13 Nays, none voting Present. And

House Bill 549, having received the required constitutional


Burzynski. Mr. -- Senator Burzynski, do you wish this bill

returned to 2nd Reading for the purposes of an amendment? Senator

Burzynski seeks leave of the Body to return House Bill 572 to the

Order of 2nd Reading for -- for the purposes of an amendment.

Hearing no objection, leave is granted. On the Order of 2nd

Reading is House Bill 572. Mr. Secretary, are there any Floor

amendments approved for consideration?

SECRETARY HARRY:

Amendment No. 3, offered by Senator Burzynski.


Senator Burzynski.

SENATOR BURZYNSKI:

Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment removes language for

physical therapy aides, which was opposed by the Hospital

Association.


Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favor, say Aye.

Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Any

further Floor amendments?

SECRETARY HARRY:

No further amendments reported.

29





3rd Reading. On the Order of 3rd Reading is House Bill 572.

Mr. Secretary, read the bill.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 572.




Senator Burzynski.

SENATOR BURZYNSKI:

Thank you, Mr. President. What this bill does is allows the

Department of Professional Regulation to establish the continuing

education requirements for renewal of licensures of physical

therapists, and then also inserts the legislative intent that only

-- individuals who meet and maintain prescribed standards of

competence and conduct may engage in the practice of physical

therapy.









Order of House Bills 3rd Reading, is House Bill 604. Senator

Peterson. Top of page 15, in the Order of House Bills 3rd

Reading, is House Bill 678. Senator Watson. Mr. Secretary, read

the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 678.


30






Senator Watson.

SENATOR WATSON:

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Several years ago,

we passed the Safe to Learn Program for our schools and it had a

sunset provision, and that sunset provision will be this

particular year. This legislation extends that sunset provision

for another three years, to July 1st of 2005.









Thomas Walsh. House Bill 843. Senator Rauschenberger. House

Bill 888. Senator Cronin. Mr. Secretary, read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 888.




Senator Cronin.

SENATOR CRONIN:

Thank you very much, Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen of

the Senate. This bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code of

Procedure {sic} (Code of Criminal Procedure). It does two things,

simply. One, it extends the period of time from ten to thirty

days that law enforcement can conduct an eavesdrop. And secondly,

it -- it's -- it provides that the State's attorney may authorize

31




an assistant State's attorney, and only an assistant State's

attorney, to apply to a circuit court judge for the use of an

eavesdropping device. Ask for your favorable consideration.






that question, there are 57 Ayes, no Nays, 1 voting Present. And



Thomas Walsh. Mr. Secretary, read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 922.




Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. What House

Bill 922 says is that if a taxing Body has a regularly scheduled

meeting during the tax week, they don't have to have another

meeting on their prescribed tax day. Yesterday we put an

amendment on it dealing with the certificate of error, saying that

if the courts approved of a certificate of error by the 30th of

November of the prior year, you would have to pay half of your

first installment of the county tax based on the certificate of

error. I know of no opposition and would be happy to answer any

questions.




32









Dillard. Mr. Secretary, read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 1000.




Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:


This is an initiative of the Associated Beer Distributors of

Illinois and it requires that a common carrier must obtain the

signature at the time of delivery of a person at least twenty-one

years of age when delivering alcoholic liquor to a resident. It's

really a cleanup of something we passed a couple of years ago, but

we found that a lot of common carriers were literally taking

alcohol to a house, leaving it on the doorstep, and, you know, the

-- the younger people from across the street or inside the house

would run out and get it. So this requires a -- a signature that

they gave it to somebody over twenty-one at the time of delivery.

We had an amendment that we adopted yesterday, worked out by the

AFL-CIO and the Beer Distributors, with respect to how one would

get notice that this wasn't complied by from a law enforcement

agency. I know of no opposition and would appreciate a favorable

vote.




33









Shadid. Mr. Secretary, read the bill.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 1011.




Senator Shadid.

SENATOR SHADID:

Thank you, Mr. President. House Bill 1011, as amended,

affects only the City of Peoria and Peoria County and permits them

to enter into an intergovernmental agreement through which the

City of Peoria can exercise zoning powers within one and a half

miles of the City's boundaries. So I would appreciate a favorable

roll call.


Any discussion? If not, the question is, shall House Bill

1011 pass. All those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed will vote

Nay. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted

who wished? Have all voted who wished? Take the record. On that

question, there are 56 Ayes, 1 Nay, none voting Present. And



Burzynski. Mr. Secretary, read the bill.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 1096.



34





Senator Burzynski.

SENATOR BURZYNSKI:

Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate,

this is a bill that's been much debated this spring in both

Chambers. We've worked. We've added a lot of different language

to it. It's the Alternative Learnings Opportunity {sic} (Learning

Opportunities) Law dealing with at-risk students, with their

education and support services, alternative education. Be more

than happy to answer any questions.





all voted who wished? Have all voted who wished? Take the



constitutional majority, is hereby declared passed. Senator

Trotter, what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR TROTTER:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. On House Bill 1011, I

inadvertently pressed No, and I would like to be recorded as an

Aye.


The record will reflect your intent, Senator. On the top --

in the middle of page 15, in the Order of House Bills 3rd Reading,

is House Bill 1148. Senator Radogno. Mr. Secretary, read the

bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 1148.



35





Senator Radogno.

SENATOR RADOGNO:

Thank you, Mr. President. House Bill 1148 embodies language

that was agreed to between the IEPA and Interstate Brands Bakery

that restores the baseline level of emissions, and that would be a

hundred tons a year, that was originally assigned to the bakery in

a judicial consent order issued in '94. This will allow that

bakery to participate in the emission reduction market program.


Is there any discussion? Senator Welch. Patrick Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

I had a -- I had a question of the sponsor.


Sponsor indicates he -- she will yield. Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Senator Radogno, the prior owner of this business, Wonder

Bread, was able to meet the emission standards set. Why does this

company, number one, need to have an extra thirty-seven tons of

emissions? And number two, if they don't have the extra

thirty-seven tons, why are they able to sell that ability to

pollute the air to somebody else if they don't need it?


Senator Radogno.

SENATOR RADOGNO:

Well, as you know, the -- the market emissions program was set

up so that we could sort of spread out the -- the problems we

have. This bill in no way allows them to go over any emission

level that is set, even for the nonattainment areas. As you know,

the bakery's changed hands. The previous bakery agreed to a lower

level of emissions in order to have a reduced fine. So, in doing

so, it's precluded the current owners from participating in the

36




market -- the market reduction program, and this would simply

allow them to do that.


Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Well, but Wonder Bread was able to operate at a sixty-three

ton pollution level. They made money. They sold the business to

this company. Now this company is coming in, after knowing that.

Without this legislation in place, they bought the company from

Wonder Bread. Now they're coming to us basically asking for a

windfall profit here. And not only are they asking for that,

they're asking that they be allowed to sell those credits to

pollute to someone else. I know the system works that you can sell

pollution credits, but why are we creating them for this company

when it's been proven that, number one, this bakery can operate at

the lower level and, number two, it was done by Wonder Bread and,

number three, the company bought the business knowing they were at

the lower level of allowing sixty-three tons of pollution into the

air? This is just a windfall for this company. And the Lung

Association is still opposed to it because it's going to create

lung problems in that particular area.


Senator Radogno.

SENATOR RADOGNO:

Thank you. A couple of comments on that. First of all, the

reason they agreed to the lower emission level was part of a fine.

They've paid -- the fine has been paid. I mean, they have done

what they need to do in order to comply. They've paid their dues,

so to speak. With respect to opposition, there -- this bill was

discussed twice in committee. There was no opposition from anyone.

You yourself voted in favor of this twice. In fact, the only

opposition that is out there at all has come only after Democratic

37




staff solicited opposition from the environmental groups. And the

fact of the matter is, some of those environmental groups actually

said, "No, this is not a bad program at all. The bill is a good

bill, and we are neutral on it."


Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Senator, in committee you said you were working on an

amendment on the Floor. You said that. Number two, I don't need

environmental groups to tell me what bills to be for and against.

And number three, I really dispute the fact that we were

soliciting environmental groups to be opposed to this. What this

bill does is allow more pollution, period. This company is trying

to get a windfall profit by this deal. They bought this business

knowing what the deal was: sixty-three tons a year. Wonder Bread

operated at that level. This is just -- this is special interest

legislation of the worst kind, and I think that this is something

that should be looked into by the Attorney General and should be

taken to court. This -- this helps one particular business that

knew what they were getting into and came down here, basically, to

get a windfall profit by getting the Legislature to push something

through that nobody really understood. I don't know why the EPA

is neutral on this. They shouldn't be because it creates more

pollution. It creates thirty-seven more tons of pollution. So I

would urge a No vote.


Further discussion? Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

Thank you, Mr. President. I just rise in support of this

bill. And, you know, I find it a little ironic, you know, if --

if there is one Senator in this Body that I look to for my

conscience on protecting the environment, it's Senator Radogno. I

38




don't think Senator Radogno would do anything to jeopardize the

safety of her constituents or anybody else, and I just find it a

little ironic that of -- you know, of all the Senators who serve

in this Body, nobody has been a stauncher protector of the

environment than Senator Radogno. And, you know, I just find it a

little ironic the rhetoric coming from the other side, and I just

rise to say this is a good bill. Senator Radogno talked to me

about it yesterday, walked me through what the provisions are.

And again, as long as Senator Radogno is the sponsor of this, I'm

comfortable with it because she has a reputation, in an area next

to my district, of being the staunchest protector of the

environment. So I urge an Aye vote on this. This bill is okay.


Further discussion? If not, Senator Radogno, to close.

SENATOR RADOGNO:

Well, thank you. I certainly respect that people can view

things differently, but I do believe this is a good bill. The

environmental community is not opposed to it and was not in

committee, and I would urge an Aye vote. Thank you.


The question is, shall House Bill 1048 {sic} pass. All those

in favor will vote Aye. Opposed will vote Nay. The voting is

open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all

voted who wish? Take the record. On that question, there are 36

Ayes, 18 Nays and 3 voting Present. And House Bill 1148, having


passed. House Bill 1189. Senator Sullivan. House Bill 1199.

Senator Philip. House Bill 1200. Senator Philip. House Bill

1201. Senator Klemm. The bottom of page 15, in the Order of

House Bills 3rd Reading, is House Bill 1202. Senator Klemm. Top

of page 16, in the Order of House Bills 3rd Reading, is House Bill

1203. Senator Philip. 1204. Senator Philip. 1205. Senator

39




Dillard. I'm sorry, 1215. Senator Dillard. House Bill 1277.

Senator Peterson. Madam Secretary, read the bill, please.

ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:

House Bill 1277.




Senator Peterson.

SENATOR PETERSON:

Thank you, Mr. President. House Bill 1277 would change the

language in the notification for a tax notification to add the

word "substantially". Under current law, a taxing body must

publish notice of a proposed property tax increase in a newspaper

following prescribed standards, in terms and size and notice and

the wording itself. Failure to meet the standards which are

outside the control of the taxing body leaves the tax open to a --

a successful tax objection. This bill, to protect the taxing

bodies from some of those errors, by stating that wording in the

published notice must be in substantially - and that's the word

that's added - substantially the wording outlined in the statutes.

The word "substantially" is used eleven times in the Property Tax

Code, so it's well defined. The amendment that was put on, the

Floor amendment, deals with the leasing of property from nonprofit

organization to a school district. And as long as a school

district is using the property for school purposes, that the

property would be exempt from taxes. Be happy...


Is there any...

SENATOR PETERSON:

...to answer any questions.


Is there any discussion? Senator Hawkinson.

40




SENATOR HAWKINSON:

Thank you, Mr. President. Will sponsor yield?


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Hawkinson.

SENATOR HAWKINSON:

As to the amendment, Senator, does this only apply to school

district-owned property, or does it apply to other exempt

property, such as religious or church property?


Senator Peterson.

SENATOR PETERSON:

Yes, Senator Hawkinson. Any property that's currently exempt

and another organization that wants to use the property that also

is exempt from property taxes and uses it for that purpose, such

as the school district wants to use it for, the property would

continue to be exempt from property taxes.


Any further discussion? Senator Hawkinson.

SENATOR HAWKINSON:

Does that use have to be a -- a -- a use that is exempt as

well? In other words, a school district couldn't lease it to a

church to run a gas station or something.


Senator Peterson.

SENATOR PETERSON:

No, it could not lease it to a gas station for a profit

purpose. It has to be used for the same purpose that you would

have originally asked for that exemption. So, if it's a school

district that uses it, they'd have to use it for educational

purposes connected with the school district or nonprofit.


Further discussion? If not, Senator Peterson, to close.

41




SENATOR PETERSON:

Ask for your support of the bill, as amended.


Question is, shall House Bill 1277 pass. All those in favor

will vote Aye. Opposed will vote Nay. The voting is open. Have

all voted who wished? Have all voted who wished? Have all voted

who wished? Take the record. On that question, there are 55

Ayes, 1 Nay, none voting Present. And House Bill 1277, having


passed. House Bill 1356. Senator Myers. Madam Secretary, read

the bill, please.


House Bill 1356.




Senator Myers.

SENATOR MYERS:

Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. This bill

amends the School Code to provide for definitions and scopes of

practice for speech pathologists and speech pathologist

assistants. It also amends the Speech-Language Pathology and

Audiology (Practice) Act to provide for licensure requirements for

speech pathology assistants. We've added an amendment to address

some of the concerns of the State Board of Education. I'd be glad

to explain it; otherwise, ask for a positive vote.





voted who wished? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On


42






Robert Madigan. Senator Madigan. House Bill 1466. Senator

Robert Madigan. House Bill 1493. Senator Parker. Madam



House Bill 1493.




Senator Parker.

SENATOR PARKER:


This Senate Bill does three -- House Bill does three things. It

requires the Tollway to submit to the General Assembly not later

than January 1, 2002, a twenty-year comprehensive strategic

financial plan. It requires an outside auditor to perform a

management audit of the Tollway. It also allows the Tollway to

enter into a contract with a local unit of government or other

public or private entity under which the Tollway can collect tolls

or fees by electronic means on behalf of another entity. The

Tollway has been approached to use its I-PASS system to collect

fees from places like O'Hare parking garage, Chicago Skyway and

even the Rockford toll bridge. I would be glad to answer any

questions and ask for an Aye vote.


There any discussion? Senator Smith.

SENATOR SMITH:

Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to record -- my -- my

button is not working as it should be. I don't know why.


The record will reflect your intent, Senator Smith. Thank you.

43




Is there any further discussion? If not, the question is, shall

House Bill 1493 pass. All those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed

will vote Nay. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish?

Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the


Present. House Bill 1493, having received the required


1519. Senator Philip. 1521. Senator Philip. 1523. Senator

Philip. 1531. Senator Weaver. House Bill 1599. Senator

Luechtefeld. House Bill 1623. Senator Myers. Madam Secretary,

read the bill.


House Bill 1623.




Senator Myers.

SENATOR MYERS:

Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. House Bill

1630 -- (16)23 has been put together to continue the program

passed in the last General Assembly for the State to pay the legal

fees necessary to defend title to land where a federal land patent

is alleged to be invalid and the State sovereignty over that land

is being challenged. The current law authorizes payment of legal

fees up to a hundred thousand dollars in this Fiscal Year '01 to

be paid from the Attorney General's contractual services budget;

however, the current law sunsets at the end of the current fiscal

year, even though the Miami Tribe litigation will still be

ongoing. This bill extends the program through Fiscal Year '02 and

adds additional requirements that the property is not covered by

title insurance, and legal representation is consolidated to the

fullest extent possible. The Fiscal Year '02 funds will come from

44




funds appropriated for this purpose, and the total payment is also

capped at a hundred thousand dollars. Finally, the current law

required to report on payments and projected payments to the

General Assembly last April, and this bill requires a similar

report by March 15, 2002. Be happy to answer questions, but would

ask for a positive vote.


Any discussion? Senator O'Daniel.

SENATOR O'DANIEL:

Thank -- thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. I

rise in strong support of this legislation. I think this is

something that needs to be done. I feel that the Miami Tribe, all

they want to do is maybe get a -- a casino anyway. But, anyway,

these people have owned this land for over a hundred years. Now a

lot of 'em are elderly and all, and to have this to -- faced with

now in their later years, I think is totally uncalled for, and I

think we should support this legislation.


Any further discussion? If not, Senator Myers, to close?

SENATOR MYERS:

...just feel that this is extremely important for those

fifteen landowners and for the State as a whole. There's an issue

of State sovereignty, so I think it's very important that everyone

here votes for this legislation.


The question is, shall -- shall House Bill 1623 pass. All

those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed will vote Nay. The voting

is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have

all voted who wished? Take the record. On that question, there

are 55 Ayes, 1 Nay and 2 voting Present. And House Bill 1623,

having received the required constitutional majority, is hereby

declared passed. House Bill 1655. Senator Dillard. House Bill

45




1664. Senator Lauzen. Bottom of page 16, in the Order of House

Bills 3rd Reading, is House Bill 1692. Senator Dillard. Madam



House Bill 1692.




Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:


This bill provides that beginning with the year 2002-2003, that

school districts may incorporate activities to address intergroup

conflict. And the objective of such activities are to improve

intergroup relations on and beyond school campuses and defuse

intergroup tensions and promote peaceful resolution of conflict.

It also provides that the school board shall make the information

available to the public concerning the ways that such activities

and programs are implemented. You know, I believe, as political

leaders, we need to do whatever we can to fight hate in both word

and deed and that our schools must actively teach tolerance and

mutual respect among groups. And, you know, we certainly need to

teach young people to overcome differences and to live peaceably

with each other, in respecting and celebrating diversity, which is

America's greatest strength. And I'd be happy to answer any

questions.


Is there any discussion? Senator Lisa Madigan.

SENATOR L. MADIGAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. Will the sponsor yield?


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Madigan.

46




SENATOR L. MADIGAN:

Senator Dillard, I know that you've been working on this for a

number of years, and I think that this is a very good bill. You

are very well-intentioned and there is certainly concern that all

of us have about the violence and the increasing violence in our

schools and ways that we can work to resolve that. I just want to

make sure that based on the amendment that was adopted in

committee the other day, that we are still going to allow

anti-bias education on the basis of children that would have

mental disabilities, physical disabilities, sexual orientation and

race.


Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

Yes, Senator Madigan, you know, clearly the intergroup

conflict that will be taught will be greater than just religious

tolerance, although the Concerned Christian of -- Americans and

the American Jewish Committee are the two groups that really

worked on this. You know, obviously hatred goes beyond just

religious differences. You know, when I was a kid, we had deaf

children at my grade school, and I vividly remember teachers

saying you must show tolerance to the handicap and please don't

tease and torment the children with hearing disabilities. So,

yes, it's broader than just religious tolerance.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR DONAHUE)

Senator Madigan.

SENATOR L. MADIGAN:

Senator Dillard, I appreciate your answer on that and in your

intent behind this, and if that is the case, I withdraw my

objection to the amendment. Thank you.


Further discussion? Senator Hawkinson.

47




SENATOR HAWKINSON:

Thank you, Madam President. Will sponsor yield?


Indicates he'll yield, Senator Hawkinson.

SENATOR HAWKINSON:

Senator, that amendment reads that the activities must be,

quote, "...respectful of individuals and their divergent

viewpoints and religious beliefs...." Will the students be

allowed to express their divergent views and religious beliefs,

even if they're contrary to the most popularly held beliefs or

those that are viewed to be politically correct?


Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

Yes, they will, Senator Hawkinson. And even most importantly

-- or, most importantly - and this was a concern of the Concerned

Christians of America {sic} - that if a child is taught that

something is wrong in their religion, they certainly can feel free

to voice it in class without any type of retribution whatsoever.

And hopefully, Senator Hawkinson, you know, on the reverse end,

these discussions -- and this bill is permissive; I want to let

everybody know it -- this bill is permissive. It's up to the local

school district that -- whether they should do this or not,

although I believe this is very important. Yes, the child can

chime up, Senator Hawkinson, and say, "Hey, I disagree and here's

why." And, hopefully, if the course is taught correctly, you

know, that discussion is healthy.


Further discussion? Senator -- Senator Hawkinson.

SENATOR HAWKINSON:

Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I don't see that anywhere in

the amendment, but I think you are appropriate to express that,

48




because all too often that's not true in some of our educational

institutions, even at the institutions of higher learning. So,

we'll take you at your word, but I -- I think this ought to not be

viewed as chilling, but rather ought to let students -- students

and teachers express their religious beliefs.


Further discussion? Senator Burzynski.

SENATOR BURZYNSKI:

Thank you. Will the sponsor yield for a question?


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Burzynski.

SENATOR BURZYNSKI:

Yeah. Senator Dillard, my recollection of discussion in

committee was a little bit different, perhaps, than what Senator

Madigan's clarification was, and I -- I'm just kind of curious. I

think that the bill -- or, the way it was explained just a minute

or two ago went a little bit farther than what I understood it to

go in committee, relative to bias. Could you please again

reiterate what you told Senator Madigan?


Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

Intergroup conflict is greater than just religion, I think is

my answer, Senator Burzynski. You know, and that would include

disabilities, or a child that might come to school with orange

hair should not be teased.


Senator Burzynski.

SENATOR BURZYNSKI:

Thank you. Would you care to delineate any further what that

might mean?


49




Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

I don't know what would finally be in the curriculum. Again,

I'm a believer in local control of your schools. And what might

be taught on the west side of Chicago would be different than what

would be taught in Macomb. But, you know, this is broader than, I

believe -- or, the bill is broader and it's not limited just to

religious tolerance.


Senator Burzynski.

SENATOR BURZYNSKI:

Thank you, Senator Dillard. Having heard that comment made on

the Floor, I -- I would like to indicate that I would voice my

opposition to the bill. And had I had that definition in

committee, I would have voted No in committee the other day as

well. And so I would urge everyone to really consider what this

bill does, as well as placing another requirement on school

districts for the school report cards.


Further discussion? Senator Molaro.

SENATOR MOLARO:

Well, I -- no, I'm -- I'm -- thank you, Mr. President. I'm

rising for this bill. There's certainly concerns by the gentleman

from Knox County, as well as the lady from Cook. But those

concerns aside, it's nice to see Senator Dillard -- I've been

railing all the time, that all we do is increase penalties and we

don't have enough bills like this. So it's nice to see bills like

this coming from you, Senator Dillard, not just enhancement of

penalties. I'd like you to keep up the good work, maybe address

some concerns and come up with good ideas like this in the future

and continue this. And I -- I think it's a great bill.


50




Further discussion? Senator Roskam.

SENATOR ROSKAM:



Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Roskam.

SENATOR ROSKAM:

Senator, you and I have been involved in this bill for the

past several weeks, and your response to the Minority Spokesman's

question, in my opinion, sort of fundamentally changes the dynamic

of what we've been involved in here. She asked a -- a specific

question as it -- as it related to gay rights. What we're --- the

dynamic that everybody's been trying to protect is if there is a

child that comes from a family that has a religious objection to

that lifestyle. I think your answer to that question really

creates a lot of concern on the part of us that have been

negotiating on this bill. I don't know if that was your intent.

I commend the Minority Spokesman for being very wise in moving an

agenda, sort of underneath the radar screen, that didn't come up

in the committee, didn't come up as part of this discussion,

didn't come up ever until just now. And I think your answer to the

question -- either I hope you didn't hear the question right, or I

hope you would -- I hope that in these remarks, you're amending

your previous answer. This whole dynamic and the reason this bill

got out of the Education Committee, in my view, is because of a

very well-defined, very narrow scope that you were trying to

advance. And your previous answer, in my opinion, sort of puts

that all up for grabs and moves this bill into a very different

posture, Senator, than what we all negotiated.


Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

Well, you know, with all due respect, Senator Roskam, I

51




disagree. I mean, the very fact that the Christian groups wanted

a sentence added that said "The activities must be respectful of

individuals and their divergent viewpoints and religious beliefs,

which are protected by the First Amendment of {sic} (to) the

Constitution of the United States", they wanted that sentence in

there because they clearly knew that there would be things other

than just religion that would be included in intergroup conflict.

And again, you know, it's whether somebody is handicapped. I

think the greatest situation and much of the tension that has gone

about and led to school shootings was a bias against kids who were

not athletically inclined and might have been -- you know, when I

went to school, we probably called them hippies. But, clearly,

some of the greatest tension is not religious; it's between

athletes and kids who are into other things, whether it's heavy

metal music or whatever. And, clearly, I don't see at all how you

could have been confused, because intergroup conflict is much

greater than just one's religious view. It's whether they -- what

they look like and a lot of other things, whether they are

athletes - jocks, so to speak - or into heavy music. And all of

those intergroup conflicts, depending upon what curriculum the

school district may choose, are there for -- for discussion in the

classroom.


Senator Roskam.

SENATOR ROSKAM:

Well, Senator, just so we're clear. My objection and the

concern that I'm -- that I'm raising today is not about any of

those issues that you addressed. My concern is this has been a

very carefully negotiated bill. The language, Senator, that's in

that was my initiative, frankly, as it related to the First

Amendment protection. But when you answer the question that part

of this agenda is a gay and lesbian agenda, that raises a real

52




concern on the part of a lot of us who wanted to make sure that

there was a -- a protection for children that are coming from

families that -- that have a concern about that lifestyle. So my

request is that we -- if you're willing, to take this bill out of

the record. If you're not, I would urge my colleagues who thought

they were voting for one thing -- I think in light of the response

under the Minority Spokesman's questioning, I think the dynamic

of the bill has changed. This was a well put together piece of

legislation, well negotiated, and the -- the legislative intent, I

think, is now ambiguous, and I think the bill is -- is flawed. So

with all due respect, depending on your reply, Senator, I'm going

to be voting No or Present. Thank you.


Further discussion? Senator Luechtefeld.

SENATOR LUECHTEFELD:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members -- or -- for purposes of a

question.


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Luechtefeld.


Senator, our analysis says that schools may incorporate

activities to address intergroup conflict. You know, schools have

done that for years. I -- I guess my -- my question is, why

would we pass a law to say that they may do that? They've had

that right to do that for years. Why would we -- what good is

this law, I guess? Or is -- is there something to follow? Is it

the -- does it -- does it lead to other things, I guess, in the

future? I just don't quite understand. You know, what you'd like

to do, certainly, is admirable. We'd all like to stop and

certainly limit this conflict. But I don't -- you know, I think

it may put pressure on schools to do this, to have -- you know,

everybody's going to come up with a program. It may be phony.

53




It's something they've done for a long time. And -- and -- and

again, your intentions, I think, are good, but I just don't

understand what -- since they may do that, what the bill does.


Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Luechtefeld, this bill's

permissive. And, you know, I was lucky to go to a school district

that taught me intergroup conflict, but not all school districts

are maybe as sensitive as they need to be. And this bill is

drafted -- as it -- as it was initially introduced in the House,

it wasn't permissive. And, to me, it has to be permissive. It has

to be up to the local school district whether they even teach

this. And, you know, going to questions outside of what the scope

is of this, it's up to the local school district to determine

whether a certain type of hatred is -- is in here or not to be

discussed. All it is, is it's there to -- if you looked at the

United States Census data, you know we have a very, very emerging

diverse country with respect to race and respect to religion. And

it's there as just sort of a nudge or a reminder to parents that

they ought to ask their local school districts, "What are you

teaching our kids about tolerance of a very increasing divergent

and diverse American public?"


Senator Luechtefeld.


Again, I -- I like your intentions. I just say that if that

-- if that parent wants to do that, he needs to go to his school

board and see to it that that -- that's being taught at school,

rather than from a legislative standpoint, simply -- certainly

we're not mandating it, but I think we're getting close to that,

and I don't -- don't know as we need to do that. Anyway, thank

54




you.


Further discussion? Senator Jacobs.

SENATOR JACOBS:


Been around here now fifteen years and I really am a little

surprised at some of the debate on this bill. I think it's a very

simple bill. It's a very straightforward bill. It's intended --

it's a voluntary program intended to relieve intergroup tensions

and intergroup problems. And I just am a little bit miffed to

think that we are -- are discussing that one child may be

different from another child, and that is something I don't

understand. And I urge an Aye vote.


Further discussion? Senator Ronen.

SENATOR RONEN:

I -- I also rise in support of -- of this bill, and I am

somewhat astounded at the debate that's come before. This bill

talks about tolerance, and I think if you're talking about

tolerance, it means that you -- you're tolerant to all. That's

the idea of it. It's like liberty, your freedom or justice. It's

indivisible. And to be picking and choosing those to whom we'll

be tolerant is really abhorrent. So I urge everybody to vote for

what is a very straightforward, simple, permissive bill that

addresses serious problems in our schools.


Further discussion? Senator Silverstein.

SENATOR SILVERSTEIN:

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm cosponsor of this bill, and I

want to commend the sponsor. You know, I've been listening to the

debate for about fifteen minutes, and it's kind of scary. We just

finished in the -- fifty years ago there was the Holocaust, where

55




people were persecuted because of their religion, their beliefs -

Jews and non-Jews. And I think we're trying to teach tolerance so

this does not happen again to anybody. And I'm encouraging people

on my side of the aisle to support this bill and I hope we get it

through. And thank you.


Any further discussion? If not, Senator Dillard, to close.

SENATOR DILLARD:

Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to point out two

things. And we've debated this rather well. First of all, what's

on the board where it says "-Report Card" is not right. This has

nothing to do with the school report card anymore, and the -- the

bill is permissive. I do want to point out, you know -- and I

appreciate that Senator Roskam and -- Senator Burzynski are, you

know, crusaders for religious beliefs or et cetera, but the

Concerned Christians -- Concerned Christian Americans and the

American Jewish Committee worked like we're supposed to in

intergroup conflict, in harmony, on this bill. And there are no

Christian groups that I know of that are opposed to this, and the

Concerned Christian Americans worked on the amendment to this

bill. So I don't know of any official religious opposition to

this bill. And if you've looked at the Census data, you've looked

at the problems in the public schools with school shootings, I

have, for the life of me, no idea how you can be opposed to this,

and I urge a favorable vote.






6 Nays, 12 voting Present. And House Bill 1692, having received


56




Top of page 17, in the Order of House Bills 3rd Reading, is House

Bill 1810. Senator Klemm. Madam Secretary, read the bill,

please.


House Bill 1810.




Senator Klemm.

SENATOR KLEMM:

Thank you, Mr. President. House Bill 1810 does actually two

things. It amends the Public Funds Statement Publication Act to

require that municipal treasurers to show all monies exceeding

twenty-five hundred dollars that are paid to an individual be in

the annual financial report. It also amends the Illinois

Municipal Code. So instead of listing each employee's name with

individual salaries, it allows the treasurer to put the employees'

names and the salary range that we do for all the units of

government. It also has an amendment that we adopted yesterday to

appoint local -- appoint village clerks that would not have to be

a resident of that community, as we do for their appointed

treasurers. There's no opposition. Everybody supports the bill.

I think it's a good one. I ask for your vote.


Is there any discussion? Senator O'Daniel.

SENATOR O'DANIEL:

Thank you, Mr. President. I sat here and listened to the

debate on 1692, and planned to vote for it, and didn't even vote.

I'd like to be recorded as voting Aye.


The record will reflect your intent, Senator O'Daniel.

Senator Welch -- further discussion? Senator Welch. Patrick

57




Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

I have a question of the sponsor.


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Senator Klemm, is there a provision still in this bill that

says that individuals who work -- public employees who work for

cities, I guess it would be, or villages, have their salary

published by category instead of specifically the amount they are

paid? Is that still in the bill?


Senator Klemm.

SENATOR KLEMM:

Yes, it is. It's a little different than the Senate Bill 101

that we unanimously passed before that has almost the same,

identical provisions. 1810 lists a little bit differently. It

adds a few more categories. I think it's a better breakdown of

the -- of the salaries. What we found out is the municipal people

are saying that to list each individual who perhaps have some

merit increases and things, causes so much dissension because some

other person who works there says, "Hey, how come I'm not making

the same as -- as Sally or Tommy is doing?" It's causing so many

problems. Now, they're the only unit of local government that is

required to do this. All the rest have the categories, and this

would just put 'em in compliance with what we do for all the

others.


Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

The most interest we have in my area is for how much the local

attorney's getting paid. Is that going to be specifically set out

58




in this bill as to what he or she is paid? Because that's the

only time anybody ever finds out what the lawyer gets paid, is

when the publication of the salary comes out.


Senator Klemm.

SENATOR KLEMM:

If they're a salaried employee and they get a salary, then

they would be grouped there, I mean I guess. But if it's an

attorney that's on contract or gets a contingency or something

else, that would be a different case.


Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Well, a lot of the attorneys are paid on a hourly basis with a

retainer fee per month, something like that. Would that be set

forth specifically in the publication?


Senator Klemm.

SENATOR KLEMM:

I would think -- I would think not. I don't know, honestly,

how -- how that would be handled right now. I would think because

there is a -- provision in there that shows that, you know, any

monies that are exceeding twenty-five hundred dollars, would have

to be still listed, and I would think that would fall under that

category, rather than an employee that gets a paycheck every week.

So, I don't think that -- I think it's covered, but it's not the

same.


Any further discussion? If not, Senator Klemm, to close.

SENATOR KLEMM:

Just -- just ask for your support.


59






Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wished? Have all

voted who wish? Take the record. On that question, there are 58

Ayes, no Nays, none voting Present. And House Bill 1810, having


passed. House Bill 1825. Senator Burzynski. Madam Secretary,

read the bill, please.


House Bill 1825.




Senator Burzynski.

SENATOR BURZYNSKI:


We have a bill that creates the Animal Cremation Act. Requires a

provider of animal cremation services prepare and distribute

written explanations of the services offered. I might add that

this bill came to me in a roundabout way, but I've been working on

it very closely for the last three to four weeks relative to

what's been going on in pet crematories throughout the State.

There certainly is a need for this. There have been editorials in

the Chicago Tribune. There have been exposes on Channel 7 ________________

relative to people who take their pets to pet crematoriums and

don't get the remains back that belong to their pet. So this is a

disclosure bill. It's not a licensure bill. We would ask for

your support.





60








Petka. Madam Secretary, read the bill, please.


House Bill 1840.




Senator Petka.

SENATOR PETKA:

Well, thank you very much, Mr. President and Members of our

Senate. The -- this bill does two things. First of all, it

provides for an optional criminal background check for student

teachers. The -- the check would be done by the Illinois State

Police. The cost then would be reimbursed by the State Board of

Education. If that individual is hired by the -- that school

board, then the -- a further criminal background check would be

waived. This would also permit that -- or, would -- the

background check would then be valid for eighteen months. In

addition to that, there is a provision here that deals with

annexation and -- and disconnection. This bill came out of the

Education Committee on the attendance roll call. I know -- I'm

not aware of any opposition, and I would urge its adoption.




vote Nay. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have

all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record.



61





Dillard. Read the bill, Madam Secretary.


House Bill 1908.




Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:


This bill was authored by two school districts in Lemont, and the

bill focuses on the office of township treasurer and township

board of school trustees. These exist only in Cook County. And

through a referendum, the voters residing within a Cook County

township can eliminate, or elect to eliminate, this board and this

township treasurer position. Because of changes in our election

cycle and the consolidated election, et cetera, this is a

technical amendment that coincides with an election that would

abolish these and -- our Election Code. And I know of no

opposition. It's really just a technical change. And I'd be

happy to answer questions, but appreciate a favorable...



SENATOR T. WALSH:



Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

What -- Senator Dillard, is this because of the fact that we

no longer have the November election that -- that we had to...


Senator Dillard.

62




SENATOR DILLARD:

As usual, Senator Walsh is correct. That's why we need this.


Any -- Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

Well, that -- so it otherwise would -- the -- the elimination,

I believe, was that every school district within the township has

to vote in the affirmative for the position to be eliminated. If

one of the school districts in the township were to not support

the abolishment of the school treasurer, then they would still

serve.


Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

Senator Walsh, it doesn't change any of the underlying law

requirements. It just changes the date.


Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

Well, I -- I support the -- the bill. I would even support

going a step further, abolishing the whole office, which I think

is an unnecessary office to begin with. But if this is the only

way that we can get it done, it's a good start.



The question is, shall House Bill 1908 pass. All those in favor

will vote Aye. Opposed will vote Nay. And the voting is open.



no Nays, 1 voting Present. And House Bill 1908, having received


House Bill 1970. Senator Peterson. Madam Secretary, read the

63




bill, please.


House Bill 1970.




Senator Peterson.

SENATOR PETERSON:


1970 replaces the current provisions regarding transactions

conducted in a language other than English. Sets forth forms that

the retailer must have the customer sign when the retail

transaction or negotiations related to the retail transaction

result in a contract in a language other than English. The terms

of the form are dependent upon whether or not the consumer used an

interpreter or not. We did present this in the Judiciary

Committee. Senator Cullerton worked with me to provide a

clarifying Floor amendment. And his amendment would require that

the customer, if he provides his own interpreter, both the

customer and the interpreter sign the acknowledgement that the

interpreter explained the terms of the contract to the customer.

And if the retailer provides an interpreter, the customer must

sign an acknowledgement form -- in the customer's native language.

This is supported by the Retail Merchants and the New Car Dealers

Association. Ask for your support on House Bill 1970.








64





Madigan. House Bill 2058. Senator Roskam. House Bill 2099.

Senator Molaro. House Bill 2125. Senator Weaver. House Bill

2137. Senator Weaver. House Bill 2157. Senator O'Malley.

Senator O'Malley. House Bill 2161. Senator Demuzio. Madam

Secretary, read the bill.


House Bill 2161.




Senator Demuzio.

SENATOR DEMUZIO:

Well, thank you very much, Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen

of the Senate. This is a bill that was brought to us by

Representative Klingler from the House. It is a bill that

requires the State's attorney to notify the Secretary of State if

a person under the year -- under the age of eighteen who does not

have a license has been charged with a violation that's arising

out of an accident where a person was involved as a driver that

caused a death or injury to another person. And it also provides

that the Secretary of State, upon receiving the notification from

the State's attorney, may deny or not issue a license to any

person. Apparently there was an incident, whereby in August of

last year, a fourteen-year-old girl was -- was killed in an

automobile that was driven by a fifteen-year-old who was

unlicensed. The unlicensed driver was subsequently charged with

reckless homicide in early November. While the charges were still

pending, the teen turned sixteen, went down to the driver's

license station and received a driver's license. This would

simply require notification by the State's attorney and would

allow the Secretary of State -- we are codifying what he already

65




does anyway. So I know of no opposition.


Is there any discussion? Senator Hawkinson.

SENATOR HAWKINSON:

Thank you, Mr. President. Will sponsor yield for a question?


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Hawkinson.

SENATOR HAWKINSON:

Senator, in the -- in the language, it uses the word,

Secretary of State may deny. Does that mean not issue?


Senator Demuzio.

SENATOR DEMUZIO:

That is correct.


Any further discussion? If not, the question is, shall House



all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record.




Thomas Walsh. Madam Secretary, read the bill, please.


House Bill 2207.




Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

...President. You know, this bill, yesterday we shelled it

and what we're trying to do is keep the discussion going, and like

66




to send it back over to the House and see if we can get a

conference committee.









Hawkinson. Madam Secretary, read the bill, please.


House Bill 2228.




Senator Hawkinson.

SENATOR HAWKINSON:

Thank you, Mr. President. House Bill 2228, as amended by

Senate Amendments 1, 2 and 3, amends the Criminal Code regarding

the preservation of evidence in chain of custody. It represents

an agreement between the law enforcement groups, the Bar

Association, the public defenders. I think everybody is on board

at this point. Last year we passed some legislation dealing with

the preservation of evidence. It created some problems. This more

specifically says how long and what evidence has to be preserved

and how it has to be preserved. I'd be happy to answer any

questions.


Is there any discussion? Senator Cullerton.

SENATOR CULLERTON:

Would the sponsor yield?

67





Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Cullerton.

SENATOR CULLERTON:

Senator, could you just focus on -- I assume this was amended

and that that amendment was in response to some objections. You

indicated that there was an agreement with, I think you said, the

Public Defenders' Association. What was the change in -- with

regard to the -- the original bill as it passed the House with

regard to chain -- chain of custody?


Senator Hawkinson.

SENATOR HAWKINSON:

Actually, Senator, the public defender and I were on the same

page exactly on that issue, and that's Senate Floor Amendment No.

3. The words "chain of custody" had been deleted from one of the

paragraphs. The Cook County Public Defender thought that ought to

go back in, and that was my feeling as well. And that's why we

adopted Senate Floor Amendment No. 3.










Halvorson. Madam Secretary, read the bill, please.


House Bill 2265.



68





Senator Halvorson.

SENATOR HALVORSON:


2265 is an initiative of the Secretary of State, and it does a

number of things. It sets additional penalties for people

convicted of DUI whose blood alcohol content registers at double

the legal limit, which is .16 or above. The worst of these

offenders will face felony charges and mandatory jail time.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, repeat DUI

offenders with a BAC greater than .15 account for twenty-seven

percent of all the fatalities. It also imposes strict penalties

upon people who drive drunk with a child in the car. Under this

plan, child endangerment penalties include felony provisions and

mandatory jail time. Third, it greatly expands the -- the Breath

Alcohol Ignition Interlock Program in Illinois. Multiple DUI

offenders will not be eligible for driving relief unless their car

is equipped with one of these devices, which ensures a drunk

driver cannot operate the car. Passed out of committee

unanimously. And I ask for a favorable vote.


Is there any discussion? Senator Jacobs.

SENATOR JACOBS:


Would the sponsor yield?


Sponsor indicates she will yield. Senator Jacobs.

SENATOR JACOBS:

I think what you're doing here, Senator, is very good. The

only question I have, and I asked you this yesterday, and I'd like

to ask you for the record. It says that -- clarifies when the

ignition interlock device shall be used. It shall be used when

69




there are two or more convictions of DUI or a similar statutory

suspension. But there's no time limit in that. So it's possible

that someone at the age of twenty-one gets a DUI and maybe at the

age of sixty-seven gets another DUI. They then would have to go

to the ignition lock. Is that correct?


Senator Halvorson.

SENATOR HALVORSON:

That is correct.


Senator Jacobs.

SENATOR JACOBS:

I mean, that's not enough to -- to not vote for this bill,

because it's a very good bill. But I think that's something that

really probably should have some time restraints on it. And maybe

we can work on that next year.


Further discussion? Senator Link.

SENATOR LINK:

Thank you, Mr. President. I -- I just want to raise in strong

support of this bill, and I want to commend a number of people on

this legislation, especially Secretary of State Jesse White, who,

with his leadership, brought a number of groups from law

enforcement, corporations, associates to work together to help set

this piece of legislation in our nation. But by passing this

legislation, I think that we face -- finally are addressing one

of the roots of all the drunk driving problems, and that's the

repeat drunk driver. I think now we are giving law enforcement

the tools they need to get this chronic abuser off the road. I'd

also like to praise a number of other companies -- another -- a

number of organizations that were involved in this and -- and

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Alliances Against Intoxicated

70




Motorists, for their diligent work on doing this. But I also want

to commend a couple other people that I don't think get recognized

for the effort that they had in this. One of 'em happens to be a

constituent of mine who worked on this diligently, and that's

John Bowlin, who is the President of Miller Brewing, who worked

very hard to make sure people like this are not on the road

anymore. Another group that I'd like to thank is the Daily Herald ____________

for running an expose on this and bringing the awareness of the

repeat offender on this matter. I think that this is a long

overdue piece of legislation. The only thing I regret in this

legislation, we didn't go as far as I think we should have gone.

I strongly support this and hope that we can get a unanimous vote

on this.


Any further discussion? If not, Senator Halvorson, to close.

SENATOR HALVORSON:

Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Senator Link, for

pointing out all the supporters. And the only reason this

legislation will come about is because everybody worked so hard

together. So I ask for a favorable vote.






no Nays, none voting Present. And House Bill 2265, having received


Top of page 18, in the Order of House Bills 3rd Reading, is House

Bill 2266. Senator Halvorson. Madam Secretary, read the bill,

please.


House Bill 2266.

71







Senator Halvorson.

SENATOR HALVORSON:

Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. Again, House

Bill 2266 punishes people who continue to ignore the law and drive

while their license is suspended or revoked by putting them in

jail and immobilizing their vehicles. Nearly seventy-five

thousand drivers were arrested for driving on a suspended or

revoked license in 1998 alone. That same year, nearly fifty

thousand people were arrested for a DUI. So this proposal, which

is very needed, focuses on the most dangerous and irresponsible

drivers on our road, people who have no respect for the law or the

safety of our citizens. I ask for a favorable roll call.





voted who wish? Have all voted who wished? Take the record. On




Dillard. House Bill 2367. Senator Luechtefeld. House Bill 2380.

Senator O'Malley. Read the bill, Madam Secretary.


House Bill 2380.




Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

72




Thank you, Mr. President and Ladies and Gentlemen of the

Senate. House Bill 2380, as amended, provides that a builder or

developer may not be required by a county or municipality to post

an irrevocable letter of credit, surety bond, or letter of

commitment by a bank to guarantee a project's completion if the

developer or builder already has such a bond on file with the

county or municipality. It also requires the counties and

municipalities to accept surety instruments from surety or

insurance companies authorized by the Department of Insurance to

sell those sureties in Illinois. The amendment, as I explained on

the Floor yesterday, dealt with the objections from the City of

Chicago and the County of Cook.






that question, there are 55 Ayes, 2 Nays, none voting Present.



Syverson. Mr. Secretary, read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 2391.




Senator Syverson.

SENATOR SYVERSON:

Thank you, Mr. President. House Bill 2391 creates the Humane

Euthanasia in Animal Shelters Act. This is legislation that has

been worked on and negotiated with the American Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society, and of

73




course, the fine Chairman of the Licensed Activities Committee. I

know of no opposition. I appreciate their help in working out

this language. Also, I should add, the Department of Agriculture

is supporting this and has language in it as well.









Radogno. Mr. Secretary, read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 2392.




Senator Radogno.

SENATOR RADOGNO:

Thank you, Mr. President. This bill is an initiative of the

Cook County Assessor, and it applies to Cook County. It attempts

to address a problem that arises when a developer builds several

residences on an area that -- that previously had only one

property identification number. This creates a problem because if

one tax bill is issued to cover the entire property, those several

owners who have split the tax liability among themselves then have

to trust each other that each will pay, and if they don't, the

entire parcel can be subject to a tax sale. House Bill 2392

attempts to motivate developers in Cook County to make application

for division in a timely fashion so that this problem does not

occur. Be happy to try to answer any questions.

74





Is there any discussion? Senator Lauzen.

SENATOR LAUZEN:

A question for the sponsor.


Sponsor indicates she will yield. Senator Lauzen.

SENATOR LAUZEN:

Senator, can you explain the opposition of the Home Builders

Association of Illinois?


Senator Radogno.

SENATOR RADOGNO:

They had previously been opposed to it, but the amendment that

we adopted in committee and is on the bill currently removes their

opposition because it takes care of their concern that if the

holdup was in the assessor's office, as opposed to their action of

filing the paperwork, that they would be liable.



Bill -- 2392 pass. All those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed


Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? ...the record.




Robert Madigan. Mr. Secretary, read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 2419.




Senator Madigan.

75




SENATOR R. MADIGAN:


2419 deals with the usage of credit reports in the underwriting of

-- certain insurance policies. This matter has recently come up

and attracted a lot of attention, and House Bill 2419 is brought

forth to address concerns that have arisen about this -- about

this practice and contains several provisions dealing with that

subject. First of all, it provides that if an insurer makes an

adverse underwriting decision based upon a record of

creditworthiness, the decision cannot be based on income, gender,

race, color, religion, or national origin. It provides that an

insurance company may not refuse to -- to issue or renew an

insurance policy soley on the basis of a credit report. Provides

that an offer by an insurance company to write a policy through an

insurer that is an affiliate does not constitute a refusal to

issue or renew a -- a policy. Further provides that if a credit

report is used in conjunction with other criteria to refuse to

issue or renew a policy of insurance, the insurer must provide the

policyholder with a notice of the underwriting action taken. This

has been amended to comply with federal law, and I would be happy

to answer any questions on House Bill 2419.



SENATOR T. WALSH:

Will the sponsor yield for a question?


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Walsh.

SENATOR T. WALSH:

Senator Madigan, as I was paging through the bill, I came

across the word "affiliate", which forces me to ask the question.

Does the word "affiliate", as used in this legislation, mean an

insurer specializing in substandard risks outside of the parent

76




insurance company?


Senator Madigan.

SENATOR R. MADIGAN:

Senator Walsh, I noticed all morning you've been very diligent

in -- in reviewing and paging through the bills, as you have done

on this one, and I compliment you on your diligence. And let me

respond by answering no.


Senator Walsh. Further discussion? Senator Bomke.

SENATOR BOMKE:

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in strong support of House

Bill 2419. It's an excellent consumer bill, one of the best

consumer bills we've had in a long time. About the last year,

many of the insurance companies have used -- or, is using, as a

criteria for underwriting, credit scoring. And I know of at least

one insurance company that has chosen to use this as its only

criteria for writing new business and/or renewing consumers or

customers who have been with them for a long time, regardless of

their loss record and regardless of whether they pay their

premiums on time. It's ambiguous. Some insurance companies will

rate someone and put them in their preferred risk. Under the

credit scoring, that same consumer may not be accepted by another

insurance company. Credit scoring is ambiguous, it's

discriminatory, and it's simply the wrong way to underwrite

consumers for insurance. And I urge a strong Aye vote for House

Bill 2419. Thank you.


Any further discussion? If not, Senator Madigan, to close.

SENATOR R. MADIGAN:

Just ask for a favorable roll call.


77








no Nays, none voting Present. And House Bill 2419, having


passed. House Bill 2428. Senator Rauschenberger. House Bill

2432. Senator Munoz. House Bill 2439. Senator Luechtefeld.

Senator Luechtefeld, do you wish this bill returned to 2nd Reading

for the purposes of an amendment? Senator Luechtefeld seeks leave

of the Body to return House Bill 2439 to the Order of 2nd Reading

for the purpose of an amendment. Hearing no objection, leave is

granted. On the Order of 2nd Reading is House Bill 2439. Mr.

Secretary, are there any Floor amendments approved for

consideration?

SECRETARY HARRY:

Amendment No. 2, offered by Senator Luechtefeld.




Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. The Senate

Amendment No. 2 becomes the bill. It permits the State Treasurer

to deposit State money in eligible banks and savings and loans for

the -- and have the interest income held in a separate account at

the bank and savings and loan which the Treasurer may then use as

a security of up to ten percent to back up new loans and existing

loans that maybe were missed -- a payment was missed for maybe a

couple of months because of layoff or disability and the homeowner

has missed those mortgage payments and resume them within a couple

of months.


Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favor, say Aye.

78




Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it. And the amendment is adopted.

Any further Floor amendments approved for consideration?

SECRETARY HARRY:





SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 2439.






Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. This bill

was brought to me by the Treasurer, Judy Baar Topinka, in an

attempt to address a small part of the problems that we've been

having with predatory lenders. This bill would allow the

Treasurer to use the linked deposit to help borrowers who attempt

to -- or, who borrow for -- for maybe homes. If they miss a -- a

payment or two, or having problems, that this can certainly maybe

help some of those people. I would be glad to answer any

questions that you might have.









Noland. House Bill 2595. Senator Luechtefeld. Mr. Secretary,

79




read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 2595.







2595 amends the Illinois Optometric Practice Act to provide a

licensing category for graduate optimetrics {sic} practicing in a

residency program. It allows -- DPR to set a separate licensing

fee. Currently, the -- requires -- the license is ninety -- nine

hundred dollars in -- to complete a one-year residency program.

Residents certainly do not earn that much money. There's a

recommended fee of one hundred dollars. It does a couple of other

things. It allows for a one-year license restricted to practice

at a -- a program location. It also aligns the statute with

current enforcement practices. And would be glad to answer any

questions that you might have.










Rauschenberger. Senator Rauschenberger, do you wish this bill

returned to 2nd Reading for purpose of an amendment? Senator

Rauschenberger seeks leave of the Body to return House Bill 2641

80




to the Order of 2nd Reading for the purpose of an amendment.


Reading is House Bill -- 2641. Mr. Secretary, are there any Floor


SECRETARY HARRY:

Amendment No. 1, offered by Senator Rauschenberger.





This amendment to the Procurement Code would allow a State

procurement officer to review and determine whether a purchase

made from the General Services Administration generalized bid list

would be appropriate for a State agency to make without going

through the Illinois process and bid. I'd appreciate its

adoption.


Is there any -- is there any discussion? If not, all those

in favor, say Aye. Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it. And the

amendment is adopted. Any further -- any further Floor amendments

approved for consideration?

SECRETARY HARRY:





SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 2641.





81





I'd like -- like to take...


Out of the record. On top of page 19, in the Order of House

Bills 3rd Reading, is House Bill 2646. Senator Dillard. House

Bill 2665. Senator Madigan. Robert Madigan. House Bill 2900.

Senator Sullivan. 2905. Senator Philip. 2911. 2914. 2917.

2920. House Bill 3050. Senator Karpiel. House Bill 3068.

Senator Lightford. Senator Lightford, you wish this bill returned

to the Order of 2nd Reading for the purpose of an amendment?

Senator Lightford seeks leave of the Body to return House Bill

3068 to the Order of 2nd Reading for the purpose of an amendment.




SECRETARY HARRY:

Amendment No. 1, offered by Senators Lightford and Munoz.


Senator Lightford.

SENATOR LIGHTFORD:


Amendment 1 to House Bill 3068 replaces the total prohibition of

imposing fees on the consumer for the first five transactions each

month for the use of a Link card or other access device issued by

a government agency for use in obtaining financial benefits under

the Illinois Public Aid Code.


Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favor, say

Aye. Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it. And the amendment is

adopted. Any further Floor amendments approved for consideration?

SECRETARY HARRY:


82





3rd Reading. House Bill 3125. Senator Sullivan. Mr.


SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 3125.




Senator Sullivan.

SENATOR SULLIVAN:


Yesterday we amended this bill to position it for conference

committee out of discussion on the State Disbursement Unit. And I

ask for an Aye vote.









Donahue. Mr. Secretary, read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 3128.




Senator Donahue.

SENATOR DONAHUE:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. House Bill 3128 rewrites

the provisions of the State Case Registry to clarify the

83




information that must be submitted to the Registry. It basically

reduces the amount of information required for nonpublic

assistance child support cases. It clarifies that the information

submitted is confidential and not subject to disclosure. And it

-- establishes penalties for failure to submit this information.

Also, in a -- we amended this bill yesterday with Floor Amendment

No. 1, which adds Senator Sullivan's bill, House Bill 3125, and it

allows a support order of {sic} (or) income-withholding order for

-- from another state to be registered in Illinois by sending

certain documents to the appropriate tribunal, which is normally

the circuit court. It's a good bill. And I would ask for your

support.


Is there any discussion? Senator Patrick Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

I had a question of the sponsor.


Sponsor indicates she will yield. Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Senator, we just went through a couple of years of torture on

this particular subject with the SDU. They are swearing that they

have all the bugs worked out. Why are we changing what is required

now after two years of -- of delay and -- and confrontation with

the SDU?


Senator Donahue.

SENATOR DONAHUE:

...a good question, Senator Welch, but this has absolutely

nothing to do with any of that.


Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

84




Does it have something to do with child support orders?


Senator Donahue.

SENATOR DONAHUE:

Yes. The Case Registry that's maintained by the Department of

Public Aid, but not this disbursement unit. Two different things.


Any further discussion? Senator Demuzio.

SENATOR DEMUZIO:

Senator, have you -- have you had an opportunity to see the

Auditor General's report of the Department of Public Aid and the

SDU and the Registry as of yesterday that was released?


Senator Donahue.

SENATOR DONAHUE:

Senator Demuzio, the Auditor's General -- the Auditor's {sic}

General report has nothing to do with -- with the Registry. It's

about the disbursement unit. We're talking about two different

animals.


Senator Demuzio.

SENATOR DEMUZIO:

Is this the Department of Public Aid?


Senator Donahue.

SENATOR DONAHUE:

It's the Department of Public Aid and the child support Case

Registry. Not the disbursement unit.


Further discussion? If not, Senator Donahue, to close.

SENATOR DONAHUE:

This has nothing to do with the problems that are established

85




through the disbursement of child support. It has to do with

information and trying to reduce some of the paperwork that's

needed for the Registry. I ask for your support.






no Nays, 4 voting Present. And House Bill 3128, having received


The Chair will remind the Membership that we are not through with

the day's business yet. We are just going to have the Rules

Report read in. Mr. Secretary, Committee Reports.

SECRETARY HARRY:

Senator Weaver, Chair of the Committee on Rules, reports the

following Legislative Measures have been assigned: Refer to the

Committee on Commerce and Industry - the Motion to Concur with

House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 252; to the Committee on

Education - Motion to Concur with House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill

116, House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 326, House Amendment 1 to

Senate Bill 487, and House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 979; to the

Committee on Environment and Energy - the Motion to Concur with

House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 724; to the Committee on

Executive - Senate Joint Resolutions 34 and 35, Motion to Concur

with House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 606, and House Amendment 1

to Senate Bill 902; to the Committee on Insurance and Pensions -

the Motion to Concur with House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 333,

and House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill -- or, 869; to the Committee

on Judiciary - Motion to Concur with House Amendment 1 to Senate

Bill 104, House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 401, House Amendments 1

and 2 to Senate Bill 797, House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 993,

House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1065, and House Amendment 1 to

86




Senate Bill 1517; to the Committee on Licensed Activities - the

Motion to Concur with House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1152; to

the Committee on Local Government - the Motion to Concur with

House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 93, and House Amendment 1 to

Senate Bill 99; to the Committee on Public Health and Welfare -

Motion to Concur with House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 382, House

Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 390, and Amendment 1 to Senate Bill

750; to the Committee on State Government Operations - the Motion

to Concur with House Amendments 1 and 2 to Senate Bill 900; to the

Committee on Transportation - Motion to Concur with House

Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 30, Amendment 2 to Senate Bill 115,



and Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1521; and Be Approved for

Consideration - Senate Amendment 3 to House Bill 215, the Motion

to Concur with House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 15, Amendment 1 to

Senate Bill 216, Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 931, Amendment 1 to

Senate Bill 950, Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 969, and Amendment 1

to Senate Bill 1117.


In the middle of page 19, in the Order of House Bills 3rd

Reading, is House Bill 3188. Senator Klemm, do you wish this bill

returned to 2nd Reading for the purposes of an amendment? Senator

Klemm seeks leave of the Body to return House Bill 3188 to the

Order of 2nd Reading for the purpose of an amendment. Hearing no

objection, leave is granted. On the Order of 2nd Reading is House

Bill 3188. Mr. Secretary, are there any Floor amendments approved

for consideration?

SECRETARY HARRY:

Amendment No. 2, offered by Senator Klemm.


Senator Klemm.

87




SENATOR KLEMM:

This is a listing of those that have quick-take proposals that

will become the bill, and I'll explain it, if you will, on 3rd

Reading.


Is there any discussion? Senator Demuzio.

SENATOR DEMUZIO:

The Senator yield for a question, please?


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Demuzio.

SENATOR DEMUZIO:

It's my understanding the ones that you are eliminating are

those that did not comply with the rule that you have established,

but there are a number of others who you -- also have not complied

that you're leaving in. Is there a particular reason?


Senator Klemm.

SENATOR KLEMM:

Some of 'em have not met the requirements, and so we did not

advance those measures and they'll have this summer to clear any

problems they have. The ones that we do have here, in trying to

realize that we just passed Senate Resolution 41 this year, we

have one that has a hearing that will be held on May 22nd. We

didn't want to hold that entire program up that -- because it's

only a couple days off and we have to move on these bills. Others

have some others that have to comply by June 7th. If they don't

finish the rest of these compliances, that are public hearings

that they're having at their town meeting or at their municipal

meeting, we would probably withdraw that in the Veto Session.

They've been advised of this. They know what they have to do.

It's trying to accommodate those that have met every other

requirement and we do have it all in our -- in our file.

88





Senator Demuzio.

SENATOR DEMUZIO:

Well, it just -- it just somehow or other gave the appearance

that certain Members were being highlighted and others were not,

that rule was being applied arbitrarily, but we'll work on it.


Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor, say Aye.

Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it. And the amendment is adopted.

Any further Floor amendments approved?

SECRETARY HARRY:





SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 3188.




Senator Klemm.

SENATOR KLEMM:

Thank you, Mr. President. This is the reduction, actually.

When we first had these quick-take requests last year, I think we

had, like, thirty-five of 'em. Eight of 'em have complied with

our House -- our Senate Resolution 41. Let me briefly go over

those so you'll understand which ones they are. The first one is

from Franklin Park - Senator Cronin - it's a project providing

relief from traffic congestion caused by an at -- at-grade

railroad crossing. In Plainfield - Senator Petka is the -- is the

Senator - is construction of a -- public infrastructure

improvements including water, sewer and roadway needs. Champaign,

89




Champaign County - Senator Weaver is the Senator in that area -

improvements to Olympian Drive. It will be the only arterial

connection between I-57 and U.S. 45 north of I-74. Mount Prospect

- Senator Sullivan - to construct a new village hall, senior

center and a public parking facility. And Downers Grove - Senator

Dillard and Senator Walsh - it's to construct a multilevel parking

deck for the municipality. Bolingbrook - Senator Petka - for a

road extension. Lincolnwood - Senator Silverstein - building a

municipal parking lot, public works usage and storage, and the

construction of a planned East West Connector Road within the

corporate limits. And Neoga - from Senator Noland - requires

easement to install water line underground. They have all met the

requirements that we've asked for. And I ask for your support on

these.


Is there any discussion? Senator Petka.

SENATOR PETKA:

Thank you very much, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. I

-- the Chairman of the Executive Committee, Senator Klemm, I

think, has done a commendable job in trying to reign in the prior

abuses in connection with quick-take. However, because I have a

possible conflict of interest in connection with this legislation,

I'm going to have to vote Present.


Further discussion? Senator Link.

SENATOR LINK:

Will the sponsor yield for a question?


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Link.

SENATOR LINK:

Senator Klemm, you know, I commend you for what you're doing

on this and getting this, but -- just one question. Is any of

90




these parcels that we are using in here going to be used for

commercial redevelopment?


Senator Klemm.

SENATOR KLEMM:

No -- no, they are not. They don't meet our requirements that

we passed in Senate Resolution 41. They're all for -- they are

all for public purposes.


Senator -- Senator Link.

SENATOR LINK:

So they're all for infrastructure. We're all on this. So

there will be no commercial redevelopment whatsoever out of any of

this quick-take?


Senator Link -- Senator Klemm.

SENATOR KLEMM:

No. They've signed affidavits. They've told us what it's

for. We've confirmed it. We asked -- we asked that they pass

resolutions by their governing body. So we have that. If they do

violate that, obviously there would be causes to go after 'em.

But there are none listed here.


Further discussion? Senator Lauzen. Further discussion? If

not, the question is, shall House Bill 31 -- would Senator Klemm

wish to close? Question is, shall House -- House Bill 3188 pass.

All those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed will vote Nay. The

voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who

wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On that

question, there are 44 Ayes, 9 Nays, and 3 voting Present. And



91




Donahue. Madam -- Mr. Secretary, read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 3247.




Senator Donahue.

SENATOR DONAHUE:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. This is the annual IDOT

conveyance bill, and it has been amended in the Senate, so --

once, with two projects in Wayne County and Cook County. The

other one's -- they're probably too numerous to number, except I

should say to you that it is going to conference and we will

probably have an opportunity -- we will have an opportunity to see

this again. I'll be happy to answer any questions.







And House Bill 3247, having -- having received the required


3284. Senator Cullerton. ...Channel 5 has requested permission

to videotape the proceedings. Hearing no objection, leave is

granted. News Channel 5 from St. Louis. House Bill 3284.

Senator Cullerton. House Bill 3289. Senator Burzynski. Mr.

Secretary, read the bill, please. 3289.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 3289.



92





Senator Burzynski.

SENATOR BURZYNSKI:


This bill does three or four things. A couple of those are

technical in nature, but it does make a direct pay permit --

permit pilot program permanent. And it also updates current sales

tax exemptions for manufacturing equipment, and also it addresses

a concern that JCAR had relative to IDOT procedures and policies.










Weaver. Mr. Secretary, read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 3392.




Senator Weaver.

SENATOR WEAVER:

Thank you, Mr. President and Members of the Senate. House

Bill 3392 amends the Developmental Disabilities {sic} (Disability)

and the Mental Disability Service {sic} (Services) Act to create a

sixteen-member workforce task force comprised of representatives

of the General Assembly, State agencies and special interest

groups. Would require that the -- the task force report barriers

93




to employment for persons with disabilities and report within six

months of their creation. Try to answer any questions. Appreciate

a favorable roll call.








majority, is hereby declared passed. The Chair will advise the

Membership that at the conclusion of the business of today, we

will be conducting a death resolution for a former colleague, so

stick around. Top of page 20, in the Order of House Bills 3rd

Reading, is House Bill 3426. Senator Rauschenberger. 3439.

3440. 3463. 3489. Senator Weaver. 3490. 3491. 3492. 3493.

Senator Rauschenberger, on 3494. 3495. House Bill 3566. Senator

Cronin. Mr. Secretary, read the bill, please.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 3566.




Senator Cronin.

SENATOR CRONIN:

Thank you very much, Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen of

the Senate. This bill deals with the issue of the Reading

Improvement Block Grant Program. This bill defines the -- the

ways in which the program is administered, focuses it much more

narrowly and makes sure that the proper personnel is hired for

purposes of reading and only reading. This does not, however,

expand the program. It simply closes certain loopholes and

94




ensures that the money spent on reading is, indeed, used for that

purpose. Ask for your favorable consideration.



Bill 3366 {sic} pass. All those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed


Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the




3576. Senator Madigan, do you wish this bill returned to 2nd

Reading for the purpose of an amendment? Hearing -- Senator

Madigan seeks leave of the Body to return House Bill 3576 to the

Order of 2nd Reading for the purpose of an amendment. Hearing no

objection, leave is granted. On the Order of 2nd Reading is

House Bill 3576. Mr. Secretary, are there any Floor amendments

approved for consideration?

SECRETARY HARRY:

Amendment No. 3, offered by Senator Madigan.


Senator Madigan.

SENATOR R. MADIGAN:

I would recommend adoption of Floor Amendment No. 3.


Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favor -- if

not, all those in favor, say Aye. Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have

it. And the amendment is adopted. Any further Floor amendments

approved?

SECRETARY HARRY:




95





SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 3576.




Senator Madigan.

SENATOR R. MADIGAN:


3576, as amended, makes several changes in the Clerk(s) of Courts

Act. First of all, the underlying bill dealt with when a person's

check has been returned at least twice, that the clerk of the

court may levy a fee of twenty-five dollars for each check

delivered that has been returned more than -- more than twice, in

addition to the regular cost. The second change in House Bill

3576 deals with restructuring or reformulating the stipend that,

first of all, has never been funded and is not in the Governor's

budget - the stipend dealing with counties who have correctional

facilities in -- in their counties. It increases that stipend

that is currently at three hundred and ninety thousand dollars -

again, that is not funded - to five hundred and nineteen thousand

seven hundred and fifty dollars, and establishes a formula insofar

as the number of inmates and the number of correctional facilities

in -- in the respective counties. And lastly, it deals with

credit cards -- or, the handling of credit cards in county

offices. And this is an initiative of the State Treasurer's

Office and the County Treasurer's Association dealing with credit

cards -- or, a person paying a fee or a license or whatever with a

county office and using a credit card to make payment on that.

Currently it is -- as I understand it, based upon the -- the

credit card regulations, it is not feasible for county offices to

handle these credit cards. Now, overall, on how this

96




restructuring, as far as changing the fee structure, whether by

minimum dollar or minimum percentage, this is a push, or almost a

push, with regards to a fee increase. In a higher case, it could

mean that a person would pay a higher percentage, and if it's a

low dollar on the minimum dollar, as far as the cost of that,

depending on what the fee charge was, this credit card payment

could be a higher cost to them. I would be happy to dodge any

questions on House Bill 3576.



Bill 3576 pass. All those in favor will -- will vote Aye.

Opposed will vote Nay. And the voting is open. Have all voted who

wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take

the record. On that question, there are 53 Ayes, 5 Nays, none

voting Present. And House Bill 3576, having received the required

constitutional majority, is hereby declared passed. Previously we

had received -- leave to return to House Bill 215. In the middle

of -- on page 14, the middle of page 14, in the Order of House

Bills 3rd Reading, is House Bill 215. Mr. Secretary, read the

bill. Oh. Senator -- Senator Dillard, do you wish this bill

returned to 2nd Reading for -- for the purpose of an amendment?

Senator Dillard seeks leave of the Body to return House Bill 215

to the Order of 2nd Reading for the purpose of an amendment.




SECRETARY HARRY:

Amendment No. 3, offered by Senator Dillard.


Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

Thank you, Mr. President. This is a technical amendment

97




dealing with fees that have to be paid when a local government

from another jurisdiction becomes a litigant in the court system.

It's technical, and we'll debate the bill on 3rd Reading. And I'd

move its adoption.


Is there any discussion? Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. A quick question for the

sponsor.


Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA:

I know that earlier, in -- in unamended form, the City of

Chicago had an objection to this bill, as I understand it, and I

wanted to check as to whether this amendment cured that objection.


Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

This amendment takes care of the City of Chicago's concerns.


Is there any further discussion? If not, all those in favor,

say Aye. Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it. And the amendment is

adopted. Any further Floor amendments approved?

SECRETARY HARRY:



3rd Reading. In the middle of page 14, in the Order of House

Bills 3rd Reading, is House Bill 215. Mr. Secretary, read the

bill.

SECRETARY HARRY:

House Bill 215.


98






Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:


This bill does a number of things with respect to the funding of

our court system and law libraries. The underlying bill allowed a

county that has a county law library to let the county board, at

the county board's discretion, raise the county law library fee

from ten dollars to nineteen dollars on the litigants of that

particular county. There are also, or has been added, an

amendment to this that added three provisions. It added a

provision that was identical to something that Senator Judy Myers

had concerning the -- certain fee collections by a circuit clerk

for drug testing, electronic monitoring, or probation, that they

shall not be subject to general distribution. And then there are

two things added with respect to filing fees in DuPage County and

Cook County only. There is a filing fee increase in Cook County

that has not been increased for nearly a decade in here and also

one for DuPage County that amounts to - since they haven't had a

filing fee increase in about ten years - about three percent a

year. The reason for filing fees is that the filing fees help

hold down local property taxes and real estate taxes, and the

statistics are quite astonishing as to how much the court systems,

especially in these two larger counties of Cook and DuPage, cost.

There has only been a twenty-nine-percent increase in Cook County

in fees since they were granted their last filing fee increase

about a decade ago, and they've had about a

hundred-and-twenty-five-percent increase in the amount of real

estate taxes that have had to go into the court system. So we

need to adjust from time to time - here it's been about ten years

- these filing fees. And the filing fees are user fees, and it

99




helps hold down local real estate taxes. I'd be happy to answer

any questions.


Is there any discussion? Senator Welch. Patrick Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

I have a question of the sponsor.


The sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Thank you. Did you say the fee for downstate libraries would

be nineteen dollars? Because the analysis now says twenty-five

dollars up from ten dollars.


Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

The bill was amended to set the ceiling at nineteen dollars.

Twenty-five dollars has been amended out. And it's up to your

county board to set that fee, and it depends whether your county

has a law library. Some counties don't have a law library. But

it's up to your county board, and it's nineteen dollars, not

twenty-five dollars, Senator Welch.


Any further discussion? Senator Roskam.

SENATOR ROSKAM:



Sponsor indicates he will yield. Senator Roskam.

SENATOR ROSKAM:

Senator, these -- these fees aren't paid by lawyers, are they?


Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

100




Generally, they'd probably be paid by the client, but in some

cases, a -- a lawyer, when they adjust their fees and other

things, sometimes eat part of the cost. But generally, they're

paid by the users of the court system - the litigants.


Senator Roskam.

SENATOR ROSKAM:

Senator, is there any limitation in this piece of legislation

that would require these funds to be used for the court system?

Or they -- could they be used at the discretion of the county

board for anything at all? Does it go to the general fund or does

it go specifically to the court system?


Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

It goes to the general fund of the county. Although, the

testimony of both County Board President Stroger, from Cook

County, and Mr. Zeilenga, who's the County Administrator of our

home county, DuPage, they talked about how much they supplement

out of real estate taxes the operation of the courts, how in our

county, the -- the -- the cost of our system of justice has gone

up so much. And while they go into the general fund, testimony of

the witnesses were they supplant out of the general fund tens of

thousands, millions of dollars to supplement the Cook County and

DuPage County system.


Senator Roskam.

SENATOR ROSKAM:

This is my final question. Criminals and -- and criminal

defendants are not paying these fees, right? This is only going

to civil litigants, the moms and pops who are bringing causes of

action, people that are filing for child support and that type of

101




thing? This isn't -- this isn't a fee against any sort of

criminal sanction. Right?


Senator Dillard.

SENATOR DILLARD:

Generally, no. And -- and -- and I don't know, and Senator

Hawkinson or Senator Petka, the State's attorney types of the

Senate, are better able to answer that than me. Most of the

criminal people are indigent, so they don't pay these fees. So

most of this is a -- is a -- is a civil litigant, and obviously, a

civil litigant, I guess, in theory, helps support the criminal

courts.


Any further discussion? Senator Trotter.

SENATOR TROTTER:

You on? Thank you...


Senator Trotter.

SENATOR TROTTER:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I just want to make a

couple clarifying points. Senator Dillard, you weren't wrong

entirely, but you had made the -- the statement that these fees

will go to the general revenue fund. I'm informed by Cook County

that these dollars, in fact, go to the public safety fund. Okay?

With that -- and also that -- just let the people know that, one,

there are higher fees than -- than these fees that we are imposing

in Cook County. The fees are higher in New York, Pennsylvania,

which is up to five hundred and fifty-nine dollars. So this is a

reasonable bill, and I would like to see everyone vote for it.



SENATOR DILLARD:

102




Thank you, Mr. President. These fees haven't been raised in a

long time, and we need user fees, as opposed to taking real estate

taxes and sales taxes, to support our criminal -- or, our -- our

justice system. And these fees, in no way, even come close to the

amount of the general fund or the public safety fund in Cook

County that's going to supplant and fund our court system. And

I'd urge a favorable vote.






26 Nays, none voting Present. And House Bill 215, having received


Ladies and Gentlemen, to accommodate the family of our former

colleague, who has passed away, we will be postponing our death

resolution until Tuesday. Resolutions.

SECRETARY HARRY:

Senate Resolution 38, offered by -- or, Senate Joint

Resolution 38 is offered by Senator Sieben.

Senate Joint Resolution 39, by Senators Shadid, Hawkinson and

others.

And Senate Resolution 150 {sic} (157), by Senator Lauzen.

They're all substantive, Mr. President.


Resolutions Consent Calender. We will now proceed to the

Order of Resolutions Consent Calendar. With leave of the Body,

all those read in today will be added to the Consent Calendar.

Mr. Secretary, have there been any objections filed to any

resolution on the Consent Calendar?

SECRETARY HARRY:

No objections have been filed, Mr. President.

103





Is there any discussion? If not, the question is, shall the

resolutions on the Consent Calendar be adopted. All those in

favor, say Aye. Opposed, Nay. The motion carries, and the

resolutions are adopted. Messages from the House.

SECRETARY HARRY:

A Message from the House by Mr. Rossi, Clerk.

Mr. President - I am directed to inform the Senate that

the House of Representatives has adopted the following joint

resolution, in the adoption of which I am instructed to ask the

concurrence of the Senate, to wit:

House Joint Resolution 43.

(Secretary reads HJR No. 43)

Adopted by the House, May 17th, 2001. The joint resolution,

offered by Senator Weaver.


Senator Weaver moves to suspend the rules for the purpose of

the immediate consideration and adoption of House Joint Resolution

43. All those in favor, say Aye. Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have

it. And the rules are suspended. Senator Weaver has moved for

the adoption of House Joint Resolution 43. All those in favor,

say Aye. Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it. And the resolution is

adopted. For clarification, Ladies and Gentlemen, before you

leave the Chamber, we will be coming back this coming Monday at

the hour of 3 p.m. We will be coming back 3 p.m. this coming

Monday. Messages.

SECRETARY HARRY:

A Message from the President.

Dear Mr. Secretary - Pursuant to the provisions of Senate

Rule 2-10(e), I hereby extend the deadlines for final action on

the following category of bills, with specific bills enumerated

under this category, to May 31, 2001: Appropriations,

104




specifically - House Bills 3426, 3439, 3440 and 3463; State

Finance, specifically - House Bills 1531, 2125, 2137, 2428, 3489

and 3490; Budget Implementation, specifically - House Bills 3491,

3492, 3493, 3494, 3495; Pensions, specifically - House Bills 1465,

2099, 2157 and 2367; Reapportionment, specifically - House Bills

1199, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 2905, 2911, 2914, 2917 and

2920; Telecommunications, specifically - House Bills 356, 843,

1189 and 2900; Ethics, specifically - House Bill 2646;

Aeronautics, specifically - House Bills 1519, 1521 and 1523;

Economic Development, specifically - House Bills 263, 1215, 1599

and 1655; and School Funding, specifically - House Bill 3050.

The letter signed by President Philip.

...President, with respect to the President's Message on bills

that have been exempted, there is also a category of Local

Government, specifically - House Bill 2432.

The letter signed by President Philip.


There any further business to come before the Senate? If not,

pursuant to the adjournment resolution, Senator Parker moves the

Senate stands adjourned until the hour of 3 p.m., Monday, May

21st, 2001. Drive carefully.

105


STATE OF ILLINOIS 92ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR … · STATE OF ILLINOIS 92ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY...

Documents

Transcript of STATE OF ILLINOIS 92ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR … · STATE OF ILLINOIS 92ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY...